Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 24	December 26 >

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 no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus emerging from this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Brown (pregnant man)

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

I feel like this is a BLP1E. This person doesn't seem to have been notable before they got pregnant, and the only coverage is of their appearance on a magazine cover. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. This article is barely a stub, and effectively only says "this exists." WP:BLP1E is absolutely relevant, there's nothing else this article could expand to with the current coverage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article, which now includes a much wider range of sources, and a review of their book, and other work Lajmmoore (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment/s to address BLP1E, I think the book, and more recent coverage of them shifts the article away from "notable for one event". also, i wonder if the article name should change - rather than (pregnant man) perhaps (activist) or (author) - as he's not pregnant now! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this resolves the BLP1E issue. He is entirely known for this one event in his life. That's it. Publishing his own book does not alleviate the fact that all the sourcing is about this one aspect of his life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:BLP1E. Astaire (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep he had international coverage: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. LIrala (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"International coverage" does not save this from being a WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all sources are about the pregnancy.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, no evidence of high-profile activities outside of the pregnancy.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, the chance that a single pregnancy is significant enough to deserve its own article is slim to none. Astaire (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Astaire - while most sources are related the Glamour cover feature - this one is about the book and the Manchester Evening News is a more recent interview, so not quite all Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book is about the pregnancy, and the Manchester Evening News interview is also largely about the pregnancy (as well as a modeling campaign which happened because of the pregnancy). Astaire (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I do remember the famous magazine cover. There has only been one news article published about him since he gave birth. I'm not sure that's significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 articles from around the world linked in the article and in here. Will add from these. --Shelter3 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have probably voted keep but WP:BLP1E is pretty clear --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brown is an activist and a social worker and not only had a child while a man but wrote two books. Agree with Lajmmoore, the article name should change to (activist) so WP:BLP1E will no longer be an issue: Brown continues to be active for trans rights and the queer community in a country that's slower on their rights than the U.S. even though they have universal health care. Glamour UK interviewer even said in June 2023 "In the UK, there's a lot of transphobia at the moment" --Shelter3 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelter3: you voted twice --FMSky (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second was a response to you really. Not sure how I would've updated my first vote. Don't assume the worst! Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this comment speaks to notability as defined by Wikipedia. There are thousands of people who are activists, social workers, or authors who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. To overcome the WP:BLP1E issue, we need reliable sources with significant coverage in a context beyond the pregnancy. Astaire (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment just a reminder that merge is also a possible outcome, as outlined at WP:BLP1E: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Lajmmoore (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that. Could you do that or another editor? Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would require identifying a target article to merge into, and proposing that as an alternative to deletion. Frankly, I cannot think of a valid merge target. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
their partners article could work Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The changes to the article since nomination has shown continued coverage through this year. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "continued coverage" is still only about his pregnancy. That doesn't fix the BLP1E problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any news coverage is from June 2023, then zero coverage... Could maybe redirect to an article about the cover itself, that has coverage. This individual isn't... Some discussion in religious media [6], showing some critical analysis, but it's all from June 2023. Nothing has happened since. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any news coverage is from June 2023, then zero coverage... Could maybe redirect to an article about the cover itself, that has coverage. This individual isn't... Some discussion in religious media [7], showing some critical analysis, but it's all from June 2023. Nothing has happened since. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct to say there is "zero coverage" outside 2023, there are articles on his book and more recent career from 2024 (references 6 and 11) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. All the sources provided are about the subject's pregnancy, and there's no evidence of high-profile activities outside said pregnancy.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bailey J Mills - his partner is notable and I think much of Brown's article could be re-worked into a longer personal life section Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge so no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bailey J Mills per Lajmmoore. Procyon117 (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pangal

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

Contested BLAR so bringing it to AfD with a proposal for a consensus redirect to Deccani–Vijayanagar_wars#Qutb_Shahi-Vijayanagara_conflicts. I don't see sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this event in reliable, independent sources for a standalone page per WP:GNG. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (paragraph or less in full-length books) of this battle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only two sources that provide a few lines (not more than five to even consider a redirect) of coverage are dubious, as one was authored by an Indian civil servant of the British administration and first published in 1900, which falls under WP:RAJ, while the other was first published in 1927. This may explain why the event has not received attention in recent academic works. I would not support the proposal for a redirect unless there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Garuda ^Talk! 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RAJ is an essay. Can you explain why removed a source, using the justification that it was a self-published source when it is clearly listed as being originally published by the University of Michigan? TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person you asked the question to, but Google Books upload data doesn't claim Michigan published it; it says "original from". (My guess, Google digitized the copy of the book held by Michigan's library) This HathiTrust index shows that Michigan is a library where the volume can be found, not that the University of Michigan Press was the publisher. All other listings are clear that the book was published by the K. Chandraiah Memorial Trust, and considering that K. Chandraiah was the author, that's a WP:SPS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not what a WP:SPS is. Conflating a memorial trust with the individual that is being memorialised is a misunderstanding of what a trust is. A trust is not an individual. The only way that it might be considered a WP:SPS is if the individual (K. Chandraiah) was the trustee of the trust and the fact that it's a memorial trust suggests that is impossible unless you believe in resurrection. The fact that the book is held by Michigan library also weighs against the argument of it being a SPS. TarnishedPath^talk 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Massive U.S. university libraries hold all kinds of nonsense books, believe me. And who on earth is publishing it as "the K. Chandraiah Memorial Trust" if not Chandraiah or his heirs? And if heirs are publishing their ancestor's work, that's still fundamentally self-published. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what a memorial trust is? TarnishedPath^talk 09:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath Explantion is given right their in the edit summary, self published sources are generally not reliable unless ofcourse it is published by a renowned author. Garuda ^Talk! 08:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: RAJ is indeed an essay however a book published by a British administrative officer should be used with caution. The claim that the Michigan library contains the book and therefore it must be reliable is not a valid argument. For instance, I raised a similar point in the RSN discussion (see below comment), where I pointed out the book is housed in Osmania University’s library but that does not make it reliable. Garuda ^Talk! 09:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A book published by a memorial trust is not a book published by the very person that the trust is memorialising. Do you understand what a trust is? TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make sense. How could a memorial trust be named after the very author? Please seek RSN for your queries. Garuda ^Talk! 10:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A memorial trust, is a charitable fund established to honour the memory of someone who has passed away. Clearly someone who has passed away isn't publishing anything. Addressing Dclemens1971's comment above memorial trusts don't necessarily have the deceased's family/ancestors as trustee/s of the trust estate. The trustee/s can often be accountants/lawyers or other professionals who were involved in setting up the trust. It is the trustee/s who run the trust at their discretion in accordance with the trust deed. I've not seen any good argument put forward as to why the source is a self-published source. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people who publish material via a memorial trust (as opposed to a legitimate publisher) are fans, associates, or relatives of the deceased. That’s why it’s functionally self-published. There’s no evidence or guarantee of the independent editorial evaluation of a publishing house. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For this source, which has some coverage but is still regarded as dubious, see this discussion. Garuda ^Talk! 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : The fort was captured and lost multiple times, should not have a specific page. Can be redirected to Deccani–Vijayanagar wars#Qutb Shahi-Vijayanagara conflicts. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Insufficient coverage Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 09:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Missing context. Almost nothing there. Tgvarrt (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic.
Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all.
We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [8]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Oaktree does not meet WP:GNG.Quotevegas (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing indepth coverage. Per lack of sigcov, in particular independent sources. per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. Tgvarrt (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of mosques in Turkey. asilvering (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

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

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Given that List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty is currently described as containing some of the most important mosques in modern-day Turkey that were commissioned by the members of Ottoman imperial family, I'd strongly prefer List of mosques in Turkey instead since the mosques in the list under discussion weren't actually commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or imperial family but rather by governors and other local notables. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evernight Games

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NWEB. Secondary sources in the article are MPOGD (listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and OMGN (2 refs: [9], [10]) both are very brief news stories (the other made longer by copypasting developer forum post). Audiogames.net article seems to contain a press release for Monarchy, one of Evernight's games, so it counts as a primary source. Mika1h (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Disappeared without a trace from the internet. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
smhistoricalarchive.blogspot.com has some historical information, mpogd.com reviewed Monarchy in 2000 and computer games online reviewed Space Merchant. However it appears unlikely they had sufficient standalone notability, so Delete. IgelRM (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NWEB. The others no, and nothing found on my own WP:BEFORE search (which is not just a "quick google search"). Will reconsider if further sources are identified. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpena Power Company

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

Does not pass WP:GNG single source indicates WP:PROMO Czarking0 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Czarking0 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has existed for 18 years with no independent sourcing. There have been several editors, but no one added any sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are precisely zero sources. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Bustamante

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Spain. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the nom knows, WP:NSPORTS is not relevant. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC is what matters. 1, 2, 3, 4. JTtheOG (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided in this discussion appear to have enough coverage for the WP:GNG to be met. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the grounds of the sources provided here, cite no 1, 2, and 3/4 passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:SECONDARY. WP:RS passes for 1 (fashion magazine), 2 (news), and no idea about 3/4 (same website). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Line (radio)

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Can find no reviews or Google News hits about show itself, just mentions. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NME / WP:RPRGM) criteria. QEnigma talk 14:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found many sites advertising the show, a book, recordings, etc., but no significant 3rd party sources. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor Trading

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

Somewhat promotional article about an East Timorese company that fails WP:GNG. Ref. 1 doesn't mention East Timor Trading Group, Ref. 2 reads like sponsored content and is possibly an interview, and Ref. 3 is primary. Most of the article is promotional and about its founder, not ETT Group. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Asia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, sources don't meet the GNG, let alone NCORP. I agree with the nominator's assessment of the cited sources, and since the article is promoting a business I will not search for additional sources. Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and nothing in google news. Fails GNG.Tgvarrt (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The True Story of the Novel

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

There is no need for this stub as one already exists for the author. Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Something went wrong with this nomination, because there is no notice on the article itself. That said,~~ Keep per WP:NBOOK. The book is clearly notable, with reviews in six journals. Hopefully someday someone will expand it (synopsis, and summaries of the reviews), but being a stub is not grounds for deletion. (Even if the book were not notable, a reasonable alternative to deletion would have been to redirect it to the author's page.) (the bot fixed the nomination errors, and I've notified the article creator) Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough reviews, and as mentioned above, being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six high quality sourced reviews show that this book passes the notability criteria for GNG and NBOOK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG quite well.★Trekker (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "an article already exists for the author" isn't a reason for deletion; the several reviews of the book cited pass GNG Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly notable book, well-sourced, no reason for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur Alavi

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

Fails notability, I checked the refs, two of them are completely fake. and in other 3 he is just mentioned as the assistant coach of the national team and/or the para-table tennis junior team coach. that's far from being notable. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - YJC has some decent coverage but it's far from enough on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Alavi

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

Fails notability, this is just one line of article and then throwing lots of not-really-related references to trick wikipedia. for example one of the sources is about District 8 Championships! (and not even the national youth championship) Sports2021 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennis. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pump.fun

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 9#Pump.fun, while apparently G4 didn't apply there still seemed to be agreement that the recreation deserved a new discussion at AfD rather than slipping quietly into acceptance. So here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the page should not be deleted, especially after the amount of coverage from notable sources this month regarding the conduct of the platform's users. I've improved the page with some small edits to fix some issues that I have with it, and I'll work on finding more sources and expanding the article tomorrow.

LemurianPatriot (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing looks good. The New York Times article is lengthy investigative journalism about this site and its origins. I don't know why people want to delete it given the sourcing, the nominator doesn't provide a rationale for deletion. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominator doesn't really give a reason to delete it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per lack of nomination rationale. Madeleine (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you placed this on the wrong discussion. @Pppery explained exactly why they nominated the article. Star Mississippi 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take using {{source assess table}} (somewhat hastily done, as Bloomberg is unfortunately paywalled). I would say weak keep for now - I think the coverage in Bloomberg, the New York Times, Gizmodo, Ars Technica, and Wired meets WP:NCRYPTO. But it's unclear to me whether this is just a passing fad or whether long-term notability is here to stay. Duckmather (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?itc=dlp_domain_whois&domain=pump.fun			✘ No
https://x.com/pumpdotfun/status/1748394672588800506			✘ No
https://dune.com/hashed_official/pumpdotfun			✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/technology/memecoins-crypto-surge.html			✔ Yes
http://web.archive.org/web/20241209211048/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pump-fun-teases-future-token-140819501.html	Yahoo Finance is often iffy		? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20241209180747/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pump-funs-removal-2-issuance-120056179.html			? Unknown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-12/pump-fun-crypto-s-4chan-attracts-iggy-azalea-and-one-million-memecoins			? Unknown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-11-26/pump-fun-s-streams-show-the-dark-side-of-memecoin-trading			? Unknown
https://gizmodo.com/pump-fun-shuts-down-its-bonkers-live-streaming-service-2000530104			✔ Yes
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/teen-creates-memecoin-dumps-it-and-earns-50000/			✔ Yes
https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/13-year-old-that-made-a-killing-creating-a-crypto-and-then-dumping-it-gets-revenge-pumped-family-doxxed-and-even-dognapping-rumours-emerge/		I'm not familiar with PC Gamer	? Unknown
https://www.wired.com/story/memecoin-kid-backlash/			✔ Yes
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/12/06/memecoin-factory-pump-fun-bans-u-k-crypto-traders	Per WP:NCRYPTO		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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. asilvering (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goidhoo School

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

Not notable Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon video games#Pokémon Home. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Home

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

This subject has no significant coverage. My BEFORE yielded nothing barring WP:GAMEGUIDE content and WP:ROUTINE news coverage of updates, as well as trivial mentions of the app's connectivity with Sword and Shield. This subject has no actual reviews or pieces of commentary that would indicate this to be independently notable. All citations in the article, barring GAMEGUIDE content, are PRIMARY sources. This article is better off redirected to List of Pokémon video games, where the subject is listed in-depth already and is listed in the context of other games in the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient amounts of critical commentary besides this I found. Still not enough, IMO, to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Same - I had a look and couldn't find much commentary on the game beyond the TheGamer article. The list of games does seem to be the place for it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hen'badhoo School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing in JSTOR, TWL, Newspapers.com. Google Books has one offline result - can't access it. Google Scholar produces 3 results - a directory and two financial statements of the government - can be ignored. English language results in Google News are a bunch of directories. Managed to find three news results in the local Maldivian language for ހެނބަދޫ ސްކޫލުގެ the school - [11] (top student in English in 2011) [12] (digital parenting workshop in 2024) and [13] (Quran competition in 2018 and 2019). I don't think these are enough to build an article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to I Love.... Back to original BLAR. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Love the '70s: Volume 2

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

Was correctly BLARed with the edit summary this is trivia, and the only reference is one for the general series, apparently used for other installments also. Then contested several times with no substantive argument, so here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: It's what the page has previously turned into, and it seems to be a given. Not sure why one of the edit reasons claimed that turning a barely source page into a redirect without discussion is bad just because the page has been around for a while, it seems pretty common to me. --Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: correct BLAR. A search shows only passing mentions, failing WP:GNG. Merge would not work as the article is effectively unreferenced (the only listed source doesn't mention the mini-series). UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addi (Tigrinya term)

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

Per WP:NOTDICT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDICT. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. Tgvarrt (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Sub Aqua Club

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

Fails WP:ORG. 16 of the 20 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Libstar underestimated the issue – the remaining 4 sources are other clubs' websites. This leaves zero independent sources. NCORP is not met and it's promotional, too. Toadspike [Talk] 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toadspike. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in the State of Mexico. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XHTOL-FM

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

Does not meet GNG, only source is the Mexican equivlent of the FCC. Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC) 17:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have been working on, but unable to handle due to other pressures, a plan that would likely cull hundreds of Mexican radio station pages. Sourcing of the kind needed to pass increased GNG pressures is just too low. The ATD will be a state list redirect, in this case List of radio stations in the State of Mexico. Earlier this year, I added the remaining state lists we did not previously have. As proof that this has been on my mind for more than six months, User:Sammi Brie/Mexico radio culling. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are other articles you wish to add from your "cull" list, now is the time. Unfortunately, just because of "other pressures" (which I do sympathize with) exist, doesn't give this or other articles that don't meet GNG a reprieve. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in the State of Mexico: if even the article creator feels there is not the level of GNG-supporting significant coverage to retain an article (even for a 55-year-and-counting station), that's never a good sign. An {{R to list entry}} may well be the best we can do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Article and sourcing have also been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Fleischer (judge)

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

The subject of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[14]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[15]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Atlanta Black Star article links to an earlier article about another case of Fleischer's on a similar theme, so it would seem to me that the "single event" clause of BLP1E isn't met. Note that the one that was linked by Oblivy isn't referenced in the wiki page, whereas the one I just linked is. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Xxc3nsoredxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that at least some channels go beyond simply reposting. They provide an avenue for discussing specific cases/outcomes, (light) editorializing by giving a brief summary of what they think are specific points of interest, as well as commentary on how they think he's growing as a professional and where he might be falling short. I would consider it a point towards notability that others take the time to analyze his character. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. ^SMason_Garrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I've had a look at the sourcing of the article and think I have a pretty good idea of what is out there and I don't think it meets standards for notability. There are some YouTube videos, the ABC video, and some niche and local media talking about him. Meanwhile his article makes him look like boring local judge but but at the moment his fame seems to be as a streamer. He may easily pass our standards soon enough, if he gets some quality news stories about him, in which case it could go back to article space in preferably through new page creation. Oblivy (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is an extremely popular judge, there have been many stories on him in media. He is covered in many channels on Youtube and other social media. His content is widely shared and followed. The article needs to be improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Wordsworth1990 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) — Wordsworth1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Being popular on YouTube does not contribute to notability, nor does being mentioned in other YouTube videos. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just overhauled the page, and I think as it stands currently, it meets notability. There are plenty of secondary sources (ABC, Houston Chronicle, Bolt, Houston Public Media), and I think they all contribute to notability. Plus, I removed some of the not-great sources and replaced them with more reputable ones. I also think his online virality should be 1 of many factors that add to his notability. Some people did not like the ABC News video as a source, but plenty of Wikipedia pages use videos as sources. I think a national news organization interviewing the person is a viable source. Plus, what was used was limited to what the ABC News host said. I think before the updates, the page should have stayed, but after the update, I still think it should stay and address concerns of people who voted to delete. Bpuddin (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments of the keeper !voters are not holding waters yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand how the Keep votes are not "holding water." Plenty of secondary sources have been added to the page, and a profile of Fleischer from the Houston Chronicle published recently (and added to the page) shows notability. This is in addition to the ABC News interview and other sources highlighting Fleischer. If anything, the Delete people's arguments are not holding water when they say he only has one notable thing about him (his viral videos). If you look at the updated page, there is more than just his viral videos; there are his elections and the fact that he helped push for bail reform in Houston, which was part of an attack during his following election. At this point, the extension of the comment period is unnecessary since there was previously a consensus to keep his page. The people who vote to delete the page should have better arguments to show why the current page should be deleted.Bpuddin (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has notability beyond simply being a judge as demonstrated in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jaffe

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, diplomats are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work in media and books. But this is "referenced" solely to a staff profile on the self-published website of a publication that the subject was the bylined author (not the subject) of a couple of pieces of writing for and a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a short blurb announcing the appointment of 16 new ambassadors -- meaning that the first is a directly affiliated primary source that isn't support for notability at all, while the second isn't detailed enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all the secondary sourcing she's got: we need to see substantive coverage about her work in diplomatic roles, not just cursory verification of the fact that she's been appointed to them. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Raja Karnan

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

Non-notable businessman, inventor and entrepreneur. The ANI piece is advertorial article, as it is written at the end see this [16]. Non of the sources are reliable. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Tamil Nadu. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is just an advertisement. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this article should be deleted. The last line appears to be a poor translation or original content from a non-English speaker. Tgvarrt (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

East Rutherford High School (North Carolina)

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

Article about a school, not properly referenced as passing WP:NSCHOOL. As always, schools are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is "referenced" solely to the school's own self-published website about itself, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about it in independent third-party sources (media, books, etc.) shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 00:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Women's T20 Cup

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

~~Not enough coverage for a separate season article; should be merged back to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)~~ — Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for both articles; both fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Shrug02 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as the nominator withdrawn the nom ‎. (non-admin closure) FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sorted in Television-related AfDs? I don't think this is a TV production. -Mushy Yank. 12:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Was unable to find any online sources about this film. As it stands, it fails WP:NFILM. Though, part of me wonders if there are any offline sources considering the film was made in 1964; if there are multiple reliable sources covering this film from something like a newspaper then I would consider keeping it. Beachweak (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is the first and noted film of a notable director (https://nfi.hu/en/core-films-1/films-3/documentaries-1/58-seconds.html) (see NFIC: involves a notable person and is a major part of their career) A Redirect to Lívia Gyarmathy#Filmography, a standard alternative to deletion when the director is notable and has a page on this WP, seems warranted anyway [edited after having improved the page]. -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: since the nom -Mushy Yank has improved the article with new sources. The movie is also mentioned in different books about women in film, like the Women in Film: An International Guide of 1991 and The Women's Companion to International Film. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been significantly improved by Mushy since my nomination and I’m inclined to keep this now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Most references are interviews or profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? -Mushy Yank. 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added to the article demonstrate that NFIC is met. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Shaye Smith

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

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found a few non-trivial newspaper articles that aren't just about her link to Brosnan. The second one mentions their relationship but it's more about her and her own career work. 1, 2. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article is not fully referenced there are four sources with WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Two were noted by GoldenAgeFan1 and I found two others. While all but one mention Pierce Brosnan they are primarily about the subject. All are now in the article but were not before the AfD discussion. There may be more sources but it's difficult to find those that might be primarily about the subject given all the articles about the Brosnans as a couple. Nnev66 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novakovich, Lilana (August 21, 1989). "Food therapy for GH's Valerie". The Toronto Star – via newspapers.com.
Slewinski, Christy (December 29, 1995). "Keely Shaye Smith turns her green thumb to gold". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 291082310 – via newspapers.com.
Fabian, Allison (January 1999). "Keely Shaye Smith putting her passion to work". New Woman. Vol. 29, no. 1. New York: Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. p. 13. ProQuest 206658619.
Tschinkel, Arielle (August 5, 2024). "Who Is Pierce Brosnan's Wife? All About Keely Shaye Brosnan". People (magazine).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found another source Close-Up | Keely Shaye Smith in Orange Coast magazine with significant coverage of the subject and no mention of Pierce Brosnan which I added to the article. This source plus the four I noted above with my keep !vote should provide enough sources for WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad (app)

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

The app seems to have no notability and what appears to be a bogus link to another company, with no reliable sources confirming it. The sources provided with mentions of the Nomad app appear to be promotional in nature and therefore I believe that this article should be deleted. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure what exactly the Nominator means by bogus link to another company. If he means their website URL is not them, then he is wrong. There is a link to their website from Apple here and also Aljazeera, so there is nothing bogus about it. Here are a list of sources that confirm they are notable: NY Times has a good coverage on them, Wall Street Journal has coverage on them, CNBC has selected them as one of 9 best eSIM cards and has a good amount of info on them, techradar has a great lengthy review on them and Drift Travel has a review on them. There are several others, but I believe these are enough to show notability.

I also think this nominator may not have enough experience yet to be doing deletion nominations, seeing that his account was only created about 15 days ago at the time of nomination. Maybe he should hold off doing nominations, until he is more experienced. I will be checking some of his other edits/nominations (if any) and if I find any issues, I'll report him to the admins.Jasonswat (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~ ADDITIONAL COMMENT— In regards to the “bogus link to another company” comment that I made, allow me to explain. In the history section of the article, there is a mention of the app being “a business line of LotusFlare, Inc., a [...] company founded by former Facebook and Microsoft engineers”. What I meant is that the fact the company (Nomad) is owned by another company which was founded by former engineers of well-known companies is being used as a way to make Nomad appear more notable. A company does not automatically become notable because of their parent company or the founders of the parent company it belongs to.

The article itself fails to demonstrate that Nomad, meets WP:GNG. To be notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. While the app is mentioned in several sources, the coverage appears to be brief or trivial. Many of the references in the article (e.g: TechRadar, Mashable, PCMag) are general roundups or listicles of "best eSIMs for travel," where Nomad is briefly mentioned without substantial analysis or focus.

The sources cited (e.g: New York Times, Wall Street Journal) mention Nomad in the context of eSIM technology, but these mentions do not provide significant coverage focused on Nomad itself. The app itself does not appear to offer any groundbreaking technology or features that distinguishes it significantly from competitors. The services it provides (e.g: mobile data plans for international travelers, regional eSIM plans) are common in the eSIM industry and are offered by many similar companies. As a result, the subject does not appear to contribute uniquely or meaningfully to the broader field of eSIM or telecommunications technology.

While the app is noted for its use during communication blackouts in Gaza, the mention is trivial and not well-supported by significant independent coverage. This does not elevate the app to notability in terms of enduring or widespread coverage.

Some other sources, like Mashable and TechRadar, appear to be affiliate or promotional content, which is discouraged under Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING). The article includes promotional language, such as descriptions of Nomad’s features and services, without critical or analytical discussion. Phrases like "Nomad eSIMs take the tension out of international data travel" (sourced from Mashable) and the inclusion of extensive product details suggest that the article may serve more as an advertisement than as a neutral encyclopedia entry.

On your last point. I appreciate your concern that you believe I may be an inexperienced editor. We all start from somewhere. However, threatening to report me to the administrators is not appropriate. If you find something worthy of the administrator team's attention, by all means make them aware but please don't use that as a way to discourage myself or other editors to make contributions to Wikipedia. I have seen editors who have been here for years who are clueless about so much and I have seen other editors who know so much in a short period of time because of their genuine interest.

Time on Wikipedia does not automatically make someone more knowledgeable; knowledge makes someone knowledgeable. I hope we can now stay on-topic.

Nyxion303 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. You cannot post additional Delete votes as a nominator as your nomination is already considered a delete vote, but welcome to post comments. You are welcome to your opinion, but I vastly disagree with your point of view. the NY Times had a good amount of coverage on them and it is one of the biggest publications. Yes they are one of many eSIM companies out there, but consistently ranked as one of the Top 10 on multiple publications. I did notice that some publications may have Amazon or affiliate links, but I have tried to avoid the ones hat have not actually performed an independent testing, so that way we can have honest reviews. As you know almost all publications make money from advertisements and affiliate links, that does not mean they are not reliable. For example CNBC describes their methodology on how they selected their top 9 list here. Drift Travel has no affiliate links and did a 9 paragraph review on them. PC Mag also has a review here and as their website the test all products that are reviewed.

Also, the fact that the founders were ex-Facebook employees is only part of their history, information commonly posted about founders on all company pages. To accuse someone of intentionally inserting that to make them notable is ridiculous. This is why I say you are not experienced enough to be nominating pages for deletion. You should refrain from further nominations until you have more experience.Jasonswat (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Jason, for taking the time to reply. Regarding the sources you’ve provided, I’d like to respectfully disagree with your assessment of their significance under Wikipedia’s guidelines. While, yes, New York Times is a reputable publication, its mention of Nomad is brief and part of a broader discussion about eSIM technology. This does not constitute significant, in-depth coverage of the app itself as required by WP:GNG. Similarly, while the Wall Street Journal and other sources, such as PCMag and Drift Travel, provide reviews or mentions of Nomad, these mentions are primarily product-focused or listicles (as I mentioned in one of my previous comments) and do not analyze the app's unique impact or significance within its field. Lists like the one from CNBC, even with a stated methodology, are still curated recommendations rather than comprehensive, independent evaluations of the app’s notability. In the case of PCMag, anyone reading that will see it for what it is; a promotional piece.

Regarding the information about the founders, I want to clarify that I am not accusing anyone of intentionally inserting this detail to fabricate notability. The point is that a company's association with founders who used to be ex-employees of a known company or a parent company which in its own right may be notable does not automatically make its child-company also notable. This is a common misunderstanding, and the emphasis should remain on whether the subject itself (Nomad, in this case) meets Wikipedia’s notability standards independently — in this case, I'm afraid, it simply does not.

Lastly, once again, I understand your concerns about my experience level as an editor. While I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I have taken great care to familiarise myself with the relevant policies and guidelines, including those regarding notability. Constructive contributions on WP and adherence to policy are not exclusive to editors who have been here for years. Yourself, for example, only created your own account mere days before I did, however, I have not pointed that out for the simple reason that it is not relevant to the discussion about the deletion of the article and off-topic. I believe we should focus on the content and merits of this discussion rather than making assumptions about an editor's capabilities based on their time on the platform.

Nyxion303 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I have reservations about the nominator's claim that it has no notability. According to my research, this app has been downloaded over 100,000 times on the Google Play Store and is ranked in the top 100 travel apps on the App Store. In addition, data from Similarweb shows that the average monthly visits to this website is around 600,000. So I think it has notability. Howiezhao (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE —~~ ADDITIONAL COMMENT— Thank you for your input. I appreciate you writing here and for sharing the statistics. Now, while the stats about the number of app downloads, app ranking and website traffic may indicate some level of popularity, they do not in themselves satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:GNG). To address each of your claim separately:

(1): Download numbers and rankings don't establish notability. Wikipedia evaluates notability based on independent, significant, and reliable secondary sources (WP:GNG). Stats like app downloads (100,000+) or rankings on app stores (e.g: top 100 travel apps) are primary data and metrics provided by platforms like the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store. These metrics reflect usage but don't actually equate to significant independent coverage by reliable sources that analyse or report on the app's impact, innovation, or even its significance. Popularity alone is insufficient to meet notability standards, as noted underWP:POPULARITY.

(2): A website's traffic does not, also, prove its notability. Data shared from Similarweb, such as 600,000 monthly visits (only 30% of which is organic according to the same site), is similarly a measure of popularity or activity like the one shared about app downloads. It does not substitute for independent and in-depth coverage about the app itself. High traffic numbers or app activity do not inherently demonstrate the subject's encyclopedic value or warrant a standalone article unless supported by secondary sources discussing why the app is notable (WP:NWEB).

To put simply, the app has a lack of substantial independent coverage and the article primarily relies on brief mentions in the sources provided that list the app alongside competitors or other promotional-style mentions (please see my previous response for an in-depth comment on this). These sources do not provide significant, in-depth coverage that would meet the threshold for WP:GNG for a standalone article. The author may, should he wish, to edit the parent company's Wikipedia article and mention Nomad under one of the company's child which I think may be a suitable compromise.

There is one more thing that I would like to mention without making any assumptions. Your account is 8 years old and has made only one contribution to Wikipedia (Special:Contributions/Howiezhao); it is the one asking for this article to remain on Wikipedia. It does raise concerns about possible conflicts of interest (WP:COI) or the account being used as a single-purpose account (WP:SPA). While having an old account with no contributions is not inherently a problem, the fact that the account’s sole contribution in 8 years is to advocate for keeping a specific article does appear, well, suspicious. It may seem as though the account is being used solely to influence the outcome of the deletion discussion. Others may see it differently. Nyxion303 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be due to lack of your knowledge with Wikipedia, as you were not able to figure out that the guy has almost 100 edits in other Wikis such as Wikidata and Chinese Wikipedia. Check this link: Special:CentralAuth/Howiezhao. Either that or you are purposely trying to downplay his status to make him look like he was not qualified for voting. Although I do agree that per Wikipedia policies download stats are not to be considered for notability. Jasonswat (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that @Howiezhao has contributions on other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikidata and the Chinese Wikipedia. Now, while I appreciate you sharing this, I believe my initial concerns about the account’s activity in relation to this discussion remain valid.

While the account has 108 contributions across Wikidata and Chinese Wikipedia, nearly all of these edits appear to have occurred before 2019 — over six years ago. To add to that, it is also Howiezhao’s very first edit on the English Wikipedia. It is very unusual for an account with no prior activity on any wikis at all for such a long period of time, none in the English Wikipedia since their account creation, to suddenly participate in a deletion discussion, raising questions about whether the account may be acting as a single-purpose account (WP:SPA) in this instance.

To be clear, my concern is not to “downplay” their contributions to other Wikimedia projects, but rather to highlight the possibility of a WP:COI or coordinated effort to influence the outcome of this deletion discussion. This is particularly relevant given the timing and context of their participation, coupled with the lack of any activity on other wikis as well for the last six years.

Ultimately, the focus of this discussion should remain on whether the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, specifically WP:GNG. I hope we can avoid distractions and continue working towards a consensus based on policy and guidelines. Again, I thank you for pointing this out, and I welcome further discussion. Nyxion303 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor Jasonswat said, I have over 100 edits in other wikis. I happened to be looking for this company Nomad and I noticed that it was being deleted, so I decided to post a vote. There is nothing suspicious and I do not have a conflict of interest. It is the first time I am posting a vote, so I had to research the format a little bit. I am sorry that I was not aware that downloads and such things do not count towards notability. Further checking on what counts towards notability, I agree with the editor Jasonswat, that there are several publications which have significant coverage on NOMAD, hence the company qualifies. Howiezhao (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems suspicious that, while this user has made edits on other wikis, this vote is their first edit on enwiki. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in CNBC, NY Times, Tech Radar and others shows that they are notable to get such coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your response. While it’s true that being mentioned those publications can suggest a certain level of visibility or recognition, it’s important to evaluate the nature and depth of that said-coverage per WP:GNG. To establish notability, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Mentions of the subject in sources like CNBC, TechRadar, and even the New York Times appear to be brief or incidental. For example, the subject is often included in lists or roundups of eSIM providers, where it's mentioned alongside other competitors without substantial analysis or in-depth focus on the app itself. These types of listicle mentions or roundups do not constitute significant coverage.

Even though the cited sources provide visibility and some recognition, they fall short of demonstrating the significant, independent, and in-depth coverage required to establish notability for a standalone article. It is more appropriate to keep the mention of Nomad briefly within the article about its parent company, LotusFlare (where it is already mentioned). I hope that you will agree, given my reasoning behind this. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 10:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that they all do not have significant coverage. Techradar is very lengthy. NY Times mentions NOMAD 10 times and appears to have about 10 paragraphs of info on them. In addition, a Google search brings back dozens of other reviews. Here are a few more I have found: PC Mag, Digital Trends, PlanHub, CyberNews, and Passporter. Shinadamina (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The app looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above by Keep voters.Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your response. Could you please share the sources you believe that have significant coverage of the subject? Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 12:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said all the ones already mentioned by keep voters, including Aljazeera, CNBC, NY Times, Tech Radar. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Here is my assessment of the sources you mentioned:

Al Jazeera: Are we really counting a trivial mention of the subject in this article as significant coverage?

CNBC: A listicle/round-up, where the subject is mentioned with 9 of its different competitors. Just a list of 9 different e-SIM providers, one of which happens to be the subject. This doesn't count as significant coverage.

NY Times: One could make a good argument for why this may be notable, although its mention of the subject is a part of a broader discussion about eSIM technology but let's assume we count this as being +1 and do say this is significant coverage as the subject gets more than just a trivial mention here.

Tech Radar: Once again, this is a listicle/round-up, where the subject is mentioned with one of its different many different competitors. Just a list of different e-SIM providers, one of which happens to be the subject. This doesn't count as significant coverage either.

Please let me know which of my assessments, if any, you disagree with and why you think it does count as significant coverage of the subject. The NY Times article is the only one that can be, in my opinion, counted towards being a noteworthy source. All the others, as mentioned above, are not. One source isn't enough to keep the article on Wikipedia, however.

~~~~ Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 23:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both TechRadar and NY Times are very lengthily. NY Times mentions NOMAD 10 times, TechRadar mentions it 7 times. They are both several paragraphs long.

Also TechRadar has a full review here. Shinadamina (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the question here is if the sources mentioned count as significant coverage. I think it's a close call from the sources I can check myself, but the Aljazeera piece doesn't seem to be a trivial mention to me. I can't see the NYT or WSJ sources, but if either of them counts as significant, or another good source is found, then this meets WP:GNG easily. That being said, not all of the sources are good and some of them should probably be cut. I don't think the nominator's experience or competency needs to be called into question, they've got good reasoning throughout their arguments, but the issues can probably be fixed through editing. Tessaract2^Hi! 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. After three weeks of discussion, I just do not see a firm consensus here. I think further conversation of merging should probably continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tel Aviv truck attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING, seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kept five weeks ago, with very few delete opinions. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting effects, all news is from over a month ago at this point. The media cycle has moved on it seems. Two deaths is rather routine and nothing out of the ordinary, even in a regular traffic accident. This isn't the Yonge Street attack in Toronto where a dozen people got caught... Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no coverage after the first week. LASTING and NOTNEWS definitely apply. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of vehicle-ramming attacks or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024. Concerns above do apply but it is in the scope of those two lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally prefer the first target (also any merge should be very cut down). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not aware of much continued coverage so far (it's still early), but that isn't strictly required, and the initial coverage was quite extensive, easily meeting WP:N(E)'s standard of very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. There are far too many RS to list, probably 100+. Just to mention some of the largest: BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NPR. The article needs work but there's ample source material. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDanielx, your quoted standard refers to national or international impact, but I'm not sure any of your linked sources go over that in any detail? Can you clarify what you believe the lasting effects are? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I was thinking of the human toll (a death and 30-40 injuries), but on second thought maybe impact is a gray area. I think ultimately since WP:N(E) has no hard requirements, we have to consider multiple factors, but the WP:DIVERSE factor certainly supports inclusion. I also just feel that when coverage is so extensive, the WP:GNG presumption should carry weight, leading us to default to inclusion unless there's a particularly strong argument for why it would fail WP:N(E). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they may be WP:DIVERSE sources, no sources extend past a few days after the event. This attack has no WP:LASTING impact and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And while I understand that I should WP:FOC with this, I think it's important to note that the article creator wrote the page while the news was still WP:BREAKING, and has been PBlocked for these creations, something which should be relevant here as the article was created regardless of the event's impact. E_F⁵ 17:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the burst of coverage immediately after (the guideline's language), there was still significant coverage days after the event, like [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Most of that was 2-3 days after, though the last was Dec 2.

I wouldn't say WP:PERSISTENCE particularly favors inclusion, but this doesn't exactly fail the standard either. In any case it's only one factor, not a requirement, while other factors like WP:DIVERSE favor inclusion.

I don't think the author's motivations should be considered, particularly since that was a while ago and this already survived one AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stay is a fact with significant coverage and great impact on Israeli society that is going through moments of fight against terrorism. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@190.219.101.225: Can I get a few examples of significant and lasting coverage, and that this event had long-lasting, if any, impacts on Israeli society? E_F⁵ 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the prior AFD was just held last month. It's pretty soon for a return trip to AFDLand. But I'm relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has significant coverage and is notable. Should be kept. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask this again, where is the significant coverage here? I see 5 sources, all of which were published right after the attack. E_F⁵ 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be in the current article to contribute to notability though. I listed more above, including 7 which were not immediately after the attack. Would you be convinced by a much longer list (including ones immediately after)? I'm happy to compile one if it would be useful. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 days after an event is normal. There is zero WP:LASTING coverage. E_F⁵ 13:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this attack has left fourty (!) people injured and has a good sources. It definitely fulfills the criteria for GNG and thus it should be kept. Karol739 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the coverage provided is run of the fill news reports. No secondary sources have been identified. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate further? News reports are normally secondary sources (unless the topic is the news org or what not). Are you saying you'd like to see non-news sources like books or papers? It seems too early for that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are normally secondary sources This is incorrect. You're confusing secondary with independent. It seems too early for that. This is correct. That's why the article is up for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content of that essay has received minimal scrutiny and should be taken with a grain of salt. I think in practice, most editors view recent news stories as contributing to notability, regardless of whether we technically consider them secondary. WP:N(E) doesn't mention primary vs secondary concerns other than saying Some editors consider narrative news reports to be primary sources .... It's something that ought to be discussed and clarified more, but I'd be surprised if the result was something strict resulting in most of WP:ITN, among other things, being in violation. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News stories are primary sources for the event they cover. This isn't something to be debated between Wikipedians, it's how historiography works. If someone is presenting newspapers as inherently secondary sources, then that person is just clueless. Primary sources don't cut it for an article, per both WP:GNG and WP:PRIMARY. And ITN is absolutely in violation. That's why there was a massive RfC a few months ago about how to deal with the mess they've made. And I have to say, you pushing this hard for an article that makes Palestine look bad really isn't a good look for you considering how your name tends to show up on these issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we use a definition of a primary source from historiography in particular though? Very different definitions arise in other contexts.

"Secondary" has been part of the notability guideline since 2007, not long after it was proposed, and I believe the intent was always to exclude sources with direct involvement which would not be objective. See this early discussion for example. The current text, "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, also supports that view although it could be more clear.

Not sure what to make of your last sentence, it seems like a vague WP:ASPERSION and certainly isn't relevant here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't as per the link provided by Alien. I'd like to see secondary sources.

> It seems too early for that.

Then this article should not exist until it can meet the criteria for GNG, which requires secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no WP:LASTING coverage. Would make sense maybe as a section in another article – this one maybe? – but we don't have an article for every single thing that happens, even if those things do get news coverage. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no long lasting effects and not significantly covered Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not count toward notability. Death count is irrelevant, and citing it indicates that one still needs more time to learn how notability works on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seconding/per xDanielx. Regardless; Also am uncomfortable with the amount of time passed since the last AfD; This discussion should be procedurally closed as per WP:6MONTHS.MWFwiki (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay not a policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could tell me where I said it was, I would greatly appreciate it! It is still a good guideline, and it exists for a reason; whenever someone points-out “it’s just an essay,” I encourage them to nominate it for deletion if they feel it has no value; regardless, re-listing after less than a month is wildly inappropriate, IMO. I should also point-out that WP:BEFORE explicitly links to this essay. MWFwiki (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said it should be procedually closed based on the essay.

>and it exists for a reason

Essays exist because someone wrote and published them. It is not a policy nor guideline and does not inform AfD procedure. If you think this AfD should be closed on the basis of it being nominated earlier that is an argument to make, but it is not part of any policy/procedure for AfDs. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no requirement codified in policy, it's certainly true that successive AfDs (when little has changed since the last result) are frowned upon. One reason is that they result in multiple WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes, which may not align with the broader consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could just as easily apply to the first AfD... Traumnovelle (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xDanielx. - Amigao (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has new coverage and a notable relating to current and historical event. Should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Strike sock. E_F⁵ 02:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xDanielx. Sigcov galore, large number of wounded, as well as a fatal attack. Also article has just been kept. Frequent nominations create the appearance of FORUMSHOP. gidonb (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Oaktree b, @QuicoleJR and @Smallangryplanet. As they said this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS and failing of WP:NOTE.Lf8u2 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noventi

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. The notability requirements for companies is much higher now. Article seems to be created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An under-referenced article on a VC firm, simply listing the people involved. The current version makes no claim to notability, nor would the lists of past investments in prior instances. The sources at the 2008 AfD would now fall under the "standard notices" provision at WP:CORPTRIV, and searches are not finding more substantial coverage, whether as Noventi Ventures or CIR Ventures. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:SIGCOV. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi T20 Trophy

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Share Insurance

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

Actually not meeting NCORP; I did we before however it did not help. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Universe 2015

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Furthermore, this Teen Universe competition does not have its own standalone article, suggesting limited notability for the event series as a whole. - The9Man ^Talk 08:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG, the fact that no other article for this event except this one raises some eyebrows. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No significant coverage and the existing references are mostly Facebook posts.

Shrug02 (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lakson Group#Media. ✗plicit 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Express Media Group

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

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY (if it still exists). I've just fixed about half a dozen incoming links intended for the Pakistani organisation of the same name. I suggest moving the Pakistani org to this name, and creating a redirect from Express Media Group (Australia) to the 4WD article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just discovered that Express Media Group (Pakistan) is actually just a redirect, not an article. So I suggest just making Express Media Group a redirect to the same article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The subject organization appears to be defunct judging by the state of the article's one external link and I don't think there was ever a time when it could claim to pass WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It looks like the company was previously called Express Publications, and I was able to find a tiny bit of coverage from 2011 under that name [24] [25]. But a long, long way from establishing notability, especially given the company now seems to be defunct. MCE89 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakol Over Habibi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Source search only shows unreliable sources or brief mentions in reliable sources, and is only notable for their appearance in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1981 (going off the article and sources) and have almost no coverage besides that, can't find anything related to the alleged albums in the article.

Not to mention it's a BLP without any references or external links, which makes it eligible for BLP PRODing. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 08:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 1981. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 1981. With the caveat that I cannot read Hebrew, a search gives cursory mentions only in regard to their Eurovision appearance. Merging would not be feasible unless sources are found to support the existing content. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per caveat mentioned, nice work on finding those sources gidonb! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) _{CheckUser confirmed sockpuppet (WP:STRIKESOCK) —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 22:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. One of Israel's most famous bands of all times. The idea that BLP1E would apply or that this would fail the GNG is awkward. The band has an easy pass of the GNG and BAND #1, #2, #3, #6, #9. This nomination is in clear defiance of NEXIST and suffers from Eurocentrism. The world does not turn around the ESC. This is a simplistic view of pop music. By the same logic, we could also delete Abba. gidonb (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources in the Israeli press. This archive –national– is incomplete. gidonb (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the somewhat obvious eurocentrism that this generally suffers from (see Wikipedia:Systemic bias.) As I myself am from the west, I don't think I would be particularly fit to find adequate sources for this article, in part because of factors such as language barriers, but also of my own fault. I also want to apologize for thinking BLP1E would apply here, as I only saw (in English sources) about their appearance in the song contest, and I believe I was mistaken. Anyhow, As you've provided several sources and cited them in the article, I'd like to withdraw my nomination as this article meets WP:GNG and very obviously should be kept.

Thanks for your work on the article, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 22:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sparkle and Fade, and welcome to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Arri. As the two other pages mentioned here have not been included in the nomination, this close cannot extend the scope to apply to them. Please nominate them separately, or boldly WP:BLAR, linking to this AfD in your edit summary. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arri PL

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

Article created from redirect is completely unreferenced with no notability argument. Although a quick Wikipedia search for "Arri PL" yields 60 hits, these are passing mentions at best. Does not meet WP:GNG and at this rate is a lot of unverifiable original research. Violates WP:OR. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge all mounts (this one, Arri standard, Arri bayonet) info Arri. I have found one for all three (see Arri standard#Sources), but it is clearly not large enough to support any of the articles, much less all three of them - but should be enough for a single section, "Mounts". Викидим (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Викидим Good find on the source. But what is there to "merge" if most of the information is unverified? Why not just restore the three redirects and go from there? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two approaches possible here: (1) Strict WP:V: "no sources-no text" and (2) lax: "information is most likely true, sources can be found". I am generally adherent of #1, but in this case #2 makes sense IMHO: it is highly unlikely that the long lists of cameras is wrong (or, God forbid, a hoax), so we can keep them, adding {{cn}} and hoping for someone to find and add the sources. As a test, I have checked a random entry, "Silicon Imaging SI-2K", and easily found [26] (first item in the Google search) where the details of a PL mount compatibility are confirmed. I am sure that the other entries can be similarly confirmed by other vendor's sites. Now, this in not WP:SIGCOV, so it does not justify an independent article, but IMHO it is perfectly OK in an already - long ago - compiled list. For the avoidance of doubt, I would be against making a new list this way, essentially relying on WP:User Somebody "Notme" Else to provide the sources. Викидим (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Following the approach #1, three short paragraphs can still be merged, one for each mount. Adding WP:ANCHOR DEFs to the section will help to resolve the external links. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirects - All 3 articles have been unreferenced since their creation in 2006. They were changed to redirects in 2022. The articles were restored recently by a user who disregarded their responsibility per WP:BURDEN. Викидим has taken the trouble to search for sources and found there is no WP:SIGCOV to justify individual articles. Further a lot of content in these articles can not be verified. A section on mounts in the Arri article, verified by Hart would be useful and cover the salvageable parts of these 3 articles. (I did wonder if my !vote should be merge or redirect, but decided redirect was more appropriate as it would be easier to start again based on Hart rather than find what was salvageable in the 3 articles and then do a 3way merge into Arri.) --John B123 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with redirect to Arri for this article (and the other two), as opposed to straight deletion. Then if anyone wants to go back and refer to the largely unreferenced and unverified information in the original stub(s) (to conduct further research so they can add details with citations to the article on Arri), they can do that by going back and looking at the history of each redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arri along with sources that mention it. Netherzone (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of SAARC summits. Sandstein 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17th SAARC summit

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

Not notable enough for a separate article, can be redirected to List of SAARC summits. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article lacks WP:RS and WP:IS to meet the WP:V. The current status of the organisation is unclear and largely speculative, given the absence of summits since 2014 and the cancellation of the 2016 summit and subsequent meetings. QEnigma talk 16:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbiakzuala

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Some appearances in India's second league. Found no significant and independent coverage, though his name might be written in a number of different ways. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Mizoram. CptViraj (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hocquaux

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple secondary sources needed to meet the WP:GNG. The corresponding article in French is also similarly devoid of sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Canary757 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Derby (Serbia)

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

Fails GNG. C F A 01:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, and no coverage found on a cursory search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, zero sources, no notability demonstrated and prose based solely on WP:OR. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Leuenberger

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This skater's career does not justify a Wikipedia article. Also lacks significant coverage with what coverage there is consisting mostly of result lists.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NSKATE. A search for sources at the Swiss newspaper archives [27] turned up mostly tournament result listings, along with non-sigcov [28][29][30]. Toadspike [Talk] 16:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships. ✗plicit 01:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all the season articles to Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships. All the relevant information, ie the medalists, is contained within the parent article. For an event with such patchy participation, it is wholly unnecessary to have separate season articles.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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