Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 03	October 05 >

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 delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cooper (sailor)

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG. Simply qualifying for the Olympics is not enough to establish notability, which does not exist. Longhornsg (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Olympics. Longhornsg (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect a six-time national champion to have coverage, though unfortunately I don't think there's any digitized Bermudian news archive. It seems he later became a lawyer, see here ("He also thanked his father, Alex Cooper, himself a respected lawyer and a sailor who represented Bermuda in the Olympics. He described his father as a 'humble, fun-loving person' although he added that those who knew him from being on his sailing crew might use different adjectives") and here ("Katherine Freisenbruch and Alex Cooper will spend two years learning the practical aspects of the profession during four 'seats' in different practice areas within the firm before 'graduating' as solicitors in September 2020. They are likely to be the first of several Bermudians to receive training at Kennedys, with the international firm having invited Bermudian law students to apply for London-based training contracts starting September 2019 and September 2020"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 8 October 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 with no prejudice to an immediate renomination. There is both numerical and strength-of-argument disagreement below regarding whether the sources are good enough or not. If anyone wishes to renominate this at AfD, I'd encourage providing a source assessment table for each source, assessing it versus our standards. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela Solidarity Campaign

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

WP:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does seem to be some decent coverage in books. I'll have a more thorough look later. I'm unsure how and on what basis you can characterise particular media sources as "pro-Venezuelan-government". What media sources which are "anti-Venezuelan-government" and are they acceptable to establish notability? AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Google Books results, it seems most are either citations of VSC, or trivial mentions. That was my first glance on the search results, but I do not deny there may be books that provide substantial coverage.

By "pro-Venezuelan-government", I meant, for example, Venezuelanalysis and the Liberation News of Party for Socialism and Liberation or other party-affiliated sites. I do not mean that all "pro-Venezuelan-government" do not establish notability – I expressed myself poorly. I doubt that specific sources establish notability because of their partisanness, with SIRS mandating absolute independence from the subject. I am no expert on notability, I could be mistaken. Janhrach (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the second glance, these mentioned sources do not seem to indicate notability for other, more sound reasons, so my remark about them is kind-of moot. Janhrach (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the breadth of trade union endorsements gives a good indication of the organisation's widespread support within the labour movement (including the largest UK unions). A small sample of reporting over time: Morning Star, Sydney Morning Herald (mention), Vice. WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being significantly supported by the labor movement does not imply notablity; coverage is required. As for the sources you provided, respectively:
1. Some coverage, independence from the subject unclear, reliability unclear.
2. The source is not accessible for me because of a paywall.
3. Very little coverage on VSC.
—Janhrach (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources that establish its notability. Most sources referenced, such as Venezuelanalysis or Liberation News, are clearly partisan and closely tied to political ideologies that align with the subject, which undermines their neutrality. IMHO, organizations that engage in propaganda should be approached with circumspection, as their primary function is to distort reality to serve specific interests. Wilfredor (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree politically with the group but describing them as engaging in propaganda is rather misleading. Irrespective of that, the motives of an organisation do not negate otherwise credible claims to notability. You have also failed to acknowledge the other sources, including books, providing coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unconvinced by the policy-based defences so far. If we put political opinions aside, this group has only trivial mentions in reliable sources, which does not satisfy WP:RS. There are many groups worldwide that support the Bolivarian Revolution and the current government of Venezuela. What makes this particular group notable? Perhaps a reliable source that significantly covers the group would be able to answer this question, but so far nobody has provided such a source. Yue🌙 21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been provided multiple times, including newspapers and books. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where they have been provided? Janhrach (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources that have been provided, but if the coverage in those sources were enough, then almost every political organisation in the world with more than a hundred supporters would have an article on Wikipedia. Where is the significant coverage by reliable sources establishing notability? Where are the sources outside of unreliable ones that themselves are part of the campaign or reliable ones that mention the campaign beyond criticisms and to establish the background of subjects who are the actual focus of the articles? Yue🌙 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:07, 4 October 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. Some support for a merge (might be worth a separate discussion) but clear consensus against deletion. asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limentra di Sambuca

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

Unsourced stub about a minor Italian river. Sources seem to exist either as trivial mentions or database entries with name and coordinates, as described as failing wp:NATFEAT. I can maybe see a merge into Reno (river), but that article is also essentially unreferenced. Lenny Marks (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the following article: Limentra orientale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a bundled nomination, as it is was creted by the same Wikipedian and is essentially in the same exact circumstances as this article, but is about a different tributary of the same river. Neither one appears to be notable enough for its own page. --Lenny Marks (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These rivers are clearly notable. I added four references to both articles, it shouldn't be difficult to find more. Markussep ^Talk 07:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources added appear substantial (not just database entries) and indicate a degree of notability. Recon rabbit 18:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here are not sufficient to support notability. The first one is pretty good - the two "Limentras" are described in some detail. It comes out of a local government for a very small inhabited place (1500 pop.). The second one is an entry in a compendium of geographical facts; it could be used to support facts, but not notability. The third (bologna.online) is brief and has only one sentence on this waterway. The fourth is only a mention in an article on domestic water usage. I note that there is nothing relating to geography in the Province of Pistoia article. This could be a good place to include not only these two waterways but other geographical features. Lamona (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think both articles meet the guideline WP:NATFEAT now, quote Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. There is clearly more information available (and used in the articles) than statistics and coordinates. I invited WT:RIVERS for comments. Markussep ^Talk 07:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if these rivers, as tributaries in a larger system, can usefully be merged somewhere. I would say merge if plausible, otherwise keep. BD2412 T 03:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reno (river): both this and Limentra orientale, where as tributaries they no longer require independent notability, and make for a more sensible, complete entry for those looking it up. Owen× ☎ 13:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a pass of WP:NATFEAT, since the sourcing provides information beyond mere statistics and coordinates. Worth noting that Lake Suviana, which impounds the Limentra orientale, is also notable, suggesting that this river is of sufficient size not to warrant a merger of its article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found and information provided. I also traced the tributaries on Google Maps and they look fairly substantial to me. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's sufficient sourcing to fulfil notability under WP:NATFEAT. Rupples (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Fakhruddin

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

BLP of a cleric described as influential, but the article contains no claim of notability and the sources provided don’t demonstrate notability. As such the article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. There may be other sources that a Bahasa Indonesia speaker can find. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we do not have, nor can we find, sources that could support independent notability. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, I can't find what he is noteable for. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Armenia. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Just because the French article was deleted, that does not automatically validate the others being deleted as well. There are around ~45 other "exonym" articles which still exist. They should all be nomed for deletion if we are going to use WP:NOTDICT as our justification. It is not fair to omit any of them based on this policy. If the policy isn't applied more fairly, I'd lean to a Keep and improve for this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A mass deletion failed a few months ago because not all such lists are equally trivial. So they are being nominated separately. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki no evidence that WP:NLIST is met. Archives908, are you aware of significant RS coverage about Armenian exonyms as a group? (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As usual, nearly all the entries are trivial examples of the necessity of adapting borrowed words to a new phonology. —Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be significantly expanded and improved, I don't think WP:TNT is worth it. Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that expansion of trivia is a good thing. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez

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

BLP that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister Venezuela 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) (but he had some significant roles in notable telenovelas, so not opposed to Keep if other users suggest that outcome)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I initially found this lacking per NBIO, as per the nominator, and draftified this so other interested parties could improve it, but an editor deemed that incorrect per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. So just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, if good sources are not found for all the content (which is not that much, it should not cost much...) then there is a risk that other sources (databases) will copy us and false information will be distributed thanks to Wikipedia. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? He is in every series cited (and much more) (I checked and for all I know, he might even meet WP:NACTOR btw). It seems your are raising a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I favour a Keep: not only does he seem to meet WP:NACTOR, see SpWP please) but above all he meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Lárez was Mister Venezuela 1999, which seems significant enough.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars. scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the guideline says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about being internationally known (which Mr Venezuela is, being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone about like the oscars (why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my !vote, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your !vote is your !vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you have WP:THREE sources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth. Thank you, sure, maybe. But a link explaining how "Mr Venezuela" is neither well-known nor significant and is not a "decent medal' and maybe, one showing that this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago would be nice. I am not sure I understand the rest of your reply. Also please note he is generally simply referred to as Alejandro Otero Again, his roles in notable telenovelas could also be considered significant so that, on top of the award, a redirect, at least, should be discussed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NCREATIVE. Wikipedia is not the directory of all actors, nor is it some collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 8 October 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 Freya. Any merging can be done editorially, the content is still available behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildisvíni

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the helmet part to Germanic boar helmet#Old Norse and redirect to Freya as the more immediate target. That part of the topic is already treated there. Interestingly there seems to exist a variation of the origin, being created by two dwarves for Freya, but I cannot figure out the details so I cannot say how much additional material there would be. Daranios (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. There's a tremendous amount of material and discussion from many secondary sources one can add to this article. Merging it will only discourage that. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: I am very much open to keeping this a separate article, but don't have a good graps of how much material there is. Could you perhaps point out some of those secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freyja. WP:BEFORE shows only trivial mentions but there is an WP:ATD. The article has been tagged for references since 2017 and the best course is to expand it at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as now there are two different Merge/Redirect suggested target articles and one definite "No merge" opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just in case that was unclear, Shooterwalker and me agree in Freya as the ultimate redirect target, as suitable parent topic. It's just that I see the helmet part at the bottom as worthy to WP:PRESERVE, and I believe this sub-topic of Hildisvíni only is better treated at Germanic boar helmet#Old Norse. Daranios (talk)

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. The response to the proposed sourcing that may meet NCORP is the most persuasive comment below, and is supported by Alpha3031 subsequently. I am happy to undelete and draftify this upon request if someone has new sources they want to add in the future. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum Investments

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

Non-notable corporation. All sources are WP:CORPTRIV about the firm's acquisitions. Also created by a blocked user. — Dan Leonard • talk • contribs 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nb for participants that there is also a draft, with different text and references, here: Draft:Parabellum Investments. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the excessive references, keeping only those that could be considered substantial, 3rd party. There are multi-paragraph articles about each of the acquisitions that discuss the business aspects. I think this now meets NCORP. Lamona (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:

"Increasing market regulation a step in the wrong direction, says private equity leader". EconoTimes. 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not independent: written by or in close collaboration with Parabellum Investments' founder.
Bignell, Francis (2021-05-06). "ieDigital: Have UK Financial Institutions' Investments Into the Digital World Provided Returns?".
Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and not even in the article prose.
"TMX sells Razor Risk to Parabellum". Finadium. 2017-01-09. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: brief one-paragraph announcement of a corporate acquisition.
Taylor, Phil (2020-04-16). "Private equity firm buys anti-counterfeit firm Advanco". www.securingindustry.com. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and only in describing how Parabellum's CEO will become chairman of the company that is the actual subject of the article.
Stuart-Turner, Richard (2023-01-04). "Tall Group acquired by Parseq". Printweek. Retrieved 2024-09-23.}
Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and is about an acquisition by a subsidiary of Parabellum. A full level removed.
"Advanco becomes the world's largest independent pharmaceutical serialization solutions provider following the acquisition of Vantage Consulting Group | Pharma Business International". 2023-06-15. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not independent: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
"Rami Cassis Acquires Connect FSS Through ieDigital – in Latest Step Towards Building World's Largest Fintech Targeting Mid-tier Financial Institutions". Financial IT. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not independent: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Tullis, Mark (2023-10-11). "Connect FSS Acquired by Parabellum Investments". www.techbuzz.news. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: primarily about the company being acquired by Parabellum and not about Parabellum itself.
"ieDigital Acquires Abaka". FinSMEs. 2024-01-29. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: primarily about the company being acquired by Parabellum and not about Parabellum itself.

I still see no evidence of Parabellum meeting WP:NCORP. None of these sources qualify. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a family office, and being realistic, it's going to be rare for any of those to receive NCORP-level coverage. Looking through the usually M&A dross, I see no reason to believe this one is an exception. Delete: Coverage needs to be of the company, and not inherited from sources describing the operations of their subsidiaries. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of Anasagara". asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete according to [1], entirely written by a WP:LLM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gptzero's false positive rate isn't great - but I agree, I believe this is an LLM creation. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 6 October 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 Yeshiva gedolah. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Matityau Yeshiva

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

I am not sure this yeshivah is notable. Unfortunately the Hebrew article isn’t much help in terms of providing additional sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Judaism, and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect mercifully to Yeshiva gedolah, since subject quite blatantly lacks sources that could support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 8 October 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 00:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are WP:SPS and paid PR. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since aside from primary sources and the usual fluff, we have nothing of substance to support notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 8 October 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 procedural keep as a duplicative nom; please use the 2nd nomination for further comment.‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM Flight 3107

AfDs for this article:

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

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE WP:NOTABILITY no lasting notability, run of the mill ground collision with no fatalities and a simple write off. Lolzer3k 20:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Romania. Lolzer3k 20:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why this article has been nominated twice at the same time?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mims

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

High school teacher who founded an interesting academy in Phoenix. While the academy might be notable, he does not inherit the notability. Much of the article is about the academy, not him. I see nothing substantive enough on him. Notability was questioned in August; I see no change and no notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona, Georgia (U.S. state), Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won an award from the US Department of Energy for STEM teaching. Some of the articles that appear to be about the academy have lengthy information about him, e.g. this. There are some non-independent references that need to be removed, but enough remain to show notability. Lamona (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked carefully at that DOE award. It provides a $7,500/month stipend providing "the opportunity to work in a Federal agency or in a U.S. Congressional office" quote taken from BNL site. As such I do not classify it as a major award that would sustain a notability claim, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We only find typical announcements, such as the US Dept of Energy's about the award of a fellowship to our subject; a lot of items whose focus is not our subject but general events, such as this, this, this, or this; more announcements such as this; and little else. We distinctly lack evidence of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to !vote, but I must note that there’s no allegation of notability in the lead paragraph. It literally describes me, or for that matter, thousands of other people. The page needs more editing. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Gnome. I agree that the award is not notability-lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 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) 01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanewashing

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

Non-notable neologism, per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: within one hour of the article creation, the nominating editor Darth Stabro first recommended the article be deleted, then one minute later added a tag suggesting the article might be improved. This seems rather incongruous to me and I recommend the editor pick a lane, as a dual-track might suggest WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that if it is to be kept, there are other things that need to be done. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 13:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Springee (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm skeptical of neologisms, but this one has clearly resonated with journalists as there's been a steady stream of sources in top-tier news as well as journalism publications over the entirety of the last month. WP:NOTDICT inapplicable as the sourcing goes way beyond basic definition/usage, and it simply passes WP:NEO. I can link to more than those in the article, but my guess is quantity of sources isn't going to be persuasive? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites, this term has been discussed by many reliable sources. What's the point of deleting an article like this, rather than working to improve upon it? Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Many more RS are commenting on this term, so it now easily passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

This article extends well beyond a dictionary entry and so WP:NOTDICT is not a reason for deletion. For example, it covers analysis of the practice of sanewashing, not just the word (RS: The Atlantic, MSNBC), and the impact of sanewashing on journalism (RS: Poynter, NPR).
This same RS coverage (plus others in the article) show that the concept of sanewashing passes WP:GNG in its own right.
WP:NEO is not a reason for deletion, as it states: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)." The above sources and others are discussing the history of the term (RS: Columbia Journalism Review), its place amongst other neologisms like greenwashing (RS: Poynter), the distinction between it and other terms like paraphrasing (RS: The Week), not simply using it. This suggests WP:WORDISSUBJECT.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jonathan Deamer. I'd elaborate but to be honest he said it better than I could. I'll just note that as a regular reader of policy-related media, I've been keeping an eye on this word/concept for a while now and it only seems to be gaining traction as a good shorthand for a useful concept. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd never heard of this term until today but it appears to be sourced reliably. [2] Andre🚐 01:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - notable and has been widely used Superb Owl (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commonly used in RS. BootsED (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and Withdraw given the consensus here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 19:28, 9 October 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 TAROM#Incidents and accidents. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM Flight 3107

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTABILITY run of the mill ground collision incident with no fatalities and a simple write off, holds no notability itself. Lolzer3k 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Romania. Lolzer3k 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (or optionally redirect to TAROM#Incidents and accidents) – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst there is some sort of continued coverage with this source, lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have not been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 07:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TAROM#Incidents and accidents. Incident is covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 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 Andrew Budzinski as an AtD. The arguments to delete (and the responses to those advocating keep) are stronger in the below discussion, and form a consensus. Late in the piece the Andrew Budzinski article was created, which opened up redirect as an alternative to deletion, which subsequently achieved sufficient support to be open to me as option when closing. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC Markets

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't see that the article passes WP:NCORP. Almost all of the available sources seem to be paid PR. Those that aren't paid PR lack WP:SIGCOV. In keeping with almost all the sources being paid PR, the article is heavily promotional. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Pinging @LibStar, @Cabrils and @HighKing as editors involved in the last discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it could do with more references, but is a notable company within this industry and should be updated not deleted. Sargdub (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of mainstream media coverage:

Vgbyp (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first SMH article is mostly quoting or attributing statements to IC. This is not WP:SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" as required by WP:NCORP.

The second SMH article mentions them in passing three times. There is no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".

I can't access The Australian article, because it's behind a paywall. No comment there.

The Knews article is about IC Markets (EU) Ltd which is registered in Cyprus, so not sure it is completely relevant to this article as this is about an Australian entity. That aside this isn't really SIGCIV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".

The ABC article looks fine. I'm not seeing enough here, but then I can't see the Australian article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The news about the Cypriot entity is relevant as the current article also provides information about the operations outside Australia. This probably has to be rewritten to clarify the connections between such entities though. Vgbyp (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is of any relevance, there's no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" in that article. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @TarnishedPath, none of @Vgbyp's suggested articles actually meet WP:SIGCOV. I will try to have a deeper look but struggled to find anything on my first WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of the articles suggested by me (except for the Sock puppets and Lifeline ads: Welcome to the wild world of copy trading by SMH) meet WP:SIGCOV. The subject doesn't necessarily need to be the source's main topic if it's covered directly and in detail, which is the case for the four news articles from my list. Vgbyp (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question we need to consider is whether they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, not whether you think they are SIGCOV compliant. We require in-depth WP:NCORP "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND *about* the *company*. The "Fake Margin Calls" articles has no in-depth information about the company other than generic information such as where there HQ is located. Repeating what the company told its customers, quotes, etc, is not "Independent Content". The article about the company getting fined is based on a press release for a total of 7 sentences, none of which provide any in-depth information. The first source about the class action simply regurgitates court documents and is not "Independent Content" and the other source is also not Independent Content as it relies on commentary from the lawfirm filing the case. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone with TWL bundle access, the article in The Australian is available via ProQuest (2912082870), among other means. I will reserve comment on the rest of the issue to a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031, thanks for that. Given what is covered in that article I don't see that it adds to the notability of the company taking into the requirements of WP:NCORP. Simply that the company be addressed directly and in-depth by independent sources. A lot of the article is quotes from either the company or from lawyers investigating initiating a class action against the company (i.e., not independent). What is left over is not the company being addressed directly and in-depth. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. TarnishedPath has provided an analsys of the sourcing above, none of which meets GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the coverage reviewed seem too routine to contribute to NCORP. I also place lower weight on discussing alleged illegal conduct on the same basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Gheus, @Sargdub, and @Mimi Ho Kora, who often edit Forex-related articles, for potential input on this AfD discussion. Vgbyp (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, notability is very weak. I did some searches in Australian newspapers and found some coverage but it is mostly about its founder Andrew Budzinski (who appear to be notable: [3], [4], [5]). Given the history of promotion by IC Markets on Wikipedia, I'd support a redirect to Andrew Budzinski (if someone works on it), otherwise a weak delete. Gheus (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gheus, I've just created a stub so I'll support a redirect to Andrew Budzinski. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this solves the problem. IC Markets is WP:TOOSOON but can become notable in near future. Gheus (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Budzinski was borderline but I have no objections to a redirect now that the target exists. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 9 October 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) 02:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syensqo

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

not meet GNG RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No reliable source.--Gabriel (……?) 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Solvay S.A.#History. While organizationally the company was spun off, our article hardly contains information beyond that of Solvay S.A. Making it an unjustified SPINOFF. This solution should receive priority by ATD, CHEAP, and PRESERVE. gidonb (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per content improvements made. NCORP was not a concern. gidonb (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It could do with more content and more references, but it is already a notable company within its industry and it should be updated, rather than deleted or redirected to Solvay S.A. (since it is effectively a new company). I found also quite a wide media coverage: Links [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --E.D.G. (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)— E.D.G. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem here is NOT notability (the popular goto response to many procedures at WP) but that of information governance. Once there is sufficient content for a new article your points and sources by NEXIST would absolutely fly. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - In order to address the points raised during the discussion, I added new content and new third-party sources to improve the article. --E.D.G. (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot !vote twice. Striking your duplicate vote. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LibStar, I am sorry, I didn't know that. I just wanted to mention the changes applied to the page and I thought the Relisting process would somehow open for a completely new discussion. Thanks for letting me know. E.D.G. (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With added sources it clearly passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Without US

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

No signs of significant coverage. The article currently references sources such as IMDb, Amazon, and the film's website that are either non-independent or fail to convey notability. A quick search fails to turn up additional coverage such as reviews. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources are primary or IMDB. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Alisauckas

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this American football player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level college and indoor football player. Fails GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Wikipedia is not the directory of the world's footballers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 9 October 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 Vértice 360. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pereiro Lage

AfDs for this article:

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

This article -- a biography of a businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO -- has now been twice recreated. (Its first creation was by a now-indeffed editor; its second creation after a PROD was by the current page creator, who requested speedy deletion under G7 after I nominated it for deletion.) The sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of his company or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; there's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. This version includes a claim in the infobox that he was a member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies. Interestingly, none of the sources verify that, and he does not appear in Wikipedia's list of members of the 12th_Congress_of_Deputies. To combination of his names appears on the Congress's website, nor do any other links on on the web confirm this statement. Even Pereiro Lage's own webpage makes no reference to being a deputy. (If anyone can provide reliable source evidence that he was indeed a member of the Deputies I will withdraw this nomination under WP:NPOL. Until then, there's still no evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ or simply repurpose the section "Squirrel Capital" into Vértice 360 or Squirrel Media, as the distribution arm is arguably notable (it could be perhaps more informative if it were structured in terms of the history of Vértice 360 and its predecessors, and not in terms of the history of Squirrel Capital, though). The deputy thing seems to be a hoax.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if either of those pages existed I’d have suggested that. But we have no valid redirect/merge target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I did just create a stub for Vértice 360. So redirect to Vértice 360.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have suggested deletion but since an article about the company has been created, a Redirect to Vértice 360 appears to be the merciful choice. -The Gnome 15:05, 8 October 2024

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection

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

I don’t understand why this page exists. Every other vice presidential candidate selection article pertains to the party’s presumptive nominee, and in 1980 Jimmy Carter comfortably won the Democratic nomination again there was no selection process for his running mate with VP Walter Mondale being selected again. This article primarily pertains to Ted Kennedy’s selection of a running mate, who was not his party’s presumptive nominee. Most of this information is already covered in Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign. Essentially, the Democratic Party in 1980 was Carter, not Kennedy. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 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 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated, there was no legitimate "selection" process for the Democratic Party VP nominee in this election, and virtually all of the relevant info is already covered in another article. No valid reason for this to exist as a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The folks in the gallery are listed at Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign#August and the actual vote is at 1980 Democratic National Convention#Vice president. This is pointless and duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary article. Jon698 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abide, and WP: FORK. We don’t need a fork of a footnote in history. I’m not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 9 October 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 mayors of Galway as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cubbard

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

Local councillors, even those who become mayor, are not presumed to be notable. Cubbard doesn't have significant press coverage to qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; a Google search finds only coverage in local media, mostly related to the fact of his candidacy. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as the mayor of a city of regional prominence (fifth biggest in Ireland), and having received coverage in national media (see my second comment here), which seems to be reasonable enough grounds to have an article per WP:POLOUTCOMES. It appears to have been a thing for donkey's years that mayors of Galway get their own article even if they don't serve at a higher office; see Donal Lyons, Terry O'Flaherty, Pádraig Conneely, Tom Costello (politician), Val Hanley, Martin Quinn (mayor) and so on. Though if this discussion finds Cubbard to be non-notable, there may need to be AfDs for all of these. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local politicians including councillors and mayors need to demonstrate they meet WP:NBASIC. Each individual should be assessed on their own merits, just because this mayor may not be notable doesn't automatically mean all previous mayors aren't notable. AusLondonder (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m aware. My point isn’t “now all these are automatically unnotable”, it’s that these articles for past mayors who didn’t hold national office are all in similar situations sourcing-wise. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further disclaimer since it's seemingly not clear; my argument is NOT that other stuff exists. It's per WP:POLOUTCOMES, which explicitly has a section on mayors of cities of regional prominence, which this person is, and asks that they say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville", which this article does. (And yes, before it's pointed out to me that this isn't a policy, I am aware.) My listing of similar articles is me explaining why I created the article, which was on the presumption that the mayors of Galway (as a city of regional prominence) were notable for having held the office. If Cubbard is judged to be non-notable by this discussion, then I'll list the rest for deletion so this doesn't end up happening again. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no notability attached to the position per se and arguments to the contrary on the basis of similar justifications used for other articles, are simply, explicitly unacceptable. If there were sources supporting independent notability about the person, it'd be otherwise; but there are not. -The Gnome (talk)
Sorry to keep writing messages but I'm putting this below since I realised I didn't cover it in my original vote; here's some coverage of Cubbard as Mayor of Galway in national media. Irish Independent covering him forgoing using poster, Newstalk covering him stepping down from the role following personal abuse, Irish Examiner covering similar, Irish Independent covering personalised abuse he received in a separate incident (though this is more of an edge case since it also discusses Clodagh Higgins). ~~There is coverage in reliable sources that in my view goes beyond WP:MILL, especially considering the rarity of a mayor stepping down temporarily during their term due to this. My vote remains a keep.~~ ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to busting the bubble again: Candidate enters the news cycle (in the Irish Independent) on the sole basis that he decided not to use election posters. Really? A proof of fame? Then he makes the news again (in NewsTalk & Irish Examiner) because he resigns! Something that's routinely reported for every public official who takes exits the job. Then, finally, a report, in the Independent, not about our subject at all but about the "abuse" allegedly suffered by Galway city councilors online. Well, dig until next year, we will excavate no foundational excuse for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to take that condescending tone, I'm just trying to post the coverage I've found. Not every politician (let alone candidate) receives this kind of coverage regarding the posters. And re the Newstalk and Examiner articles it wasn't about him resigning but "stepping back", which isn't something that happens to every public official, let alone due to highly publicised personal abuse covered in multiple sources. ~~This in my eyes meets WP:SIGCOV, as it's coverage specifically about him in multiple national news outlets.~~ If you disagree, that's all well and good, but you can do so without getting snarky about it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No condescending tone intended nor adopted; just my take on your attempt at sourcing. I might be wrong but I will not be condescending. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the clarification. The thing of "bursting the bubble" and "dig until next year" just felt... very condescending to me. But if not intended then no sweat, carry on. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete. I've done some looking back on past AfDs for county councillors and honestly, I've changed my mind. The coverage that I've talked about doesn't seem to be enough based on prior precedent - similar articles have been deleted because the coverage was seen as WP:MILL, and even that coverage was more than three articles discussing any given councillor in national media. The only reason I created the article was because I was under the belief the mayoralty of Galway was a notable position, which seemingly is not the case, and the articles I mentioned above all seem to have been created by the same user. Apologies for the rigmarole. Additionally, I would not oppose a Redirect to List of mayors of Galway, which may be an easier solution for this and the remaining non-notable mayors than deletion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to the aforementioned List of mayors of Galway would be entirely appropriate, encyclopaedically. -The Gnome (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>> List of mayors of Galway. Djflem (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the initial proposer, I thought I should comment before it’s closed, though I can see it’s moving towards a consensus in any case. I came across Cubbard while working on a specific task of marking incumbent TDs in constituency pages, and wondered how he’d got an article. While true that he is a former mayor of Ireland’s fourth largest city, so might seem to be covered by a WP:POLOUTCOMES exception, that is a global standard, and probably applies more in the case of mayors with a personal mandate, like the Mayor of Limerick, than the rotating chair of most Irish mayors. That said, and it may be my regional bias, I would not advocate deletion of a Lord Mayor of Dublin, even though their mandate is similar, given that they do get a decent amount of comparative coverage, and they are first citizen of our capital. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:03, 11 October 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 Masahiro Sakurai#Project Sora per previous status — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Sora

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR. Insufficient information is available to warrant a standalone article as per WP:GNG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Not sure an AfD was necessary, this just seems like a WP:NOTHERE IP's attempt to edit war. The studio isn't standalone notable, lacking SIGCOV in reliable sources. Even if it was, there would be too much WP:OVERLAP with Kid Icarus: Uprising to justify a page. They were essentially just its dev team. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Nothing in this article indicates that they are notable enough for a standalone article and is an unnecessary WP:REDUNDANTFORK. cyberdog958^Talk 18:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 5 October 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 Masahiro Sakurai#Project Saura. WP:SNOW. Will semi-protect. asilvering (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sora Ltd.

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR. Insufficient information is available to warrant a standalone article as per WP:GNG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Too inextricably tied with Sakurai to justify a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and protect the redirect from being overwritten. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree protection is needed on the redirect. --John B123 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per WP:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Blitzfan51 speak to the manager — Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as alter-ego of Sakurai. Andre🚐 01:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SKCRIT#6: article is currently linked on the main page. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Number Six

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

A trivial, ephermeral, People-Magazoid piece of mung. Qwirkle (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold and pause on discussion per WP:SK#6. Once it is taken off (approximately 7 hours, or at 8 PM EDT), then we can discuss deletion. But not now. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think we can do better with deletion arguments than "trivial, ephermeral [...] piece of mung". Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search finds sources such as the New York Times, Wired and USA Today. Jannaultheal (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[If this AfD is speedy-kept and the article is re-AfD'd after midnight, please copy this comment to the next.]
I agree there's a serious problem with this article: While we do cite in-depth coverage from high-quality sources Vanity Fair, Wired, The A.V. Club, USA Today and The New York Times, in addition to two less prestigious but still entirely reliable sources from three years ago (ephemeral indeed), we still haven't gotten around to updating it for all the other reliable-source reporting that's emerged. There's still The Wall Street Journal to add [6]^PQ, and El País [7], and Complex [8], and maybe this Slate podcast [9] (haven't listened yet). These add both missing facts and important analysis about the social implications of the search and its resolution. I'll be sure to add them all in when I next have time to expand this.
I can't find any coverage in People magazine, though. I guess they avoid covering the same things as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6 and Tamzin's references. This AfD reminds me of the successful Where is Kate? AfD, but I also !voted keep there, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, WP:GNG and others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this actually seems interesting, and might assist in possible research SAMURAI-OF-BISEXUALITY 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China Milan Equity Exchange

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

No establishment of notability and no cites at all. Looks rather promo. Amigao (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, China, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. China Milan Equity Exchange (simplified Chinese: 米兰产权交易所; traditional Chinese: 米蘭產權交易所) does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for 15 years. No third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 10 October 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 North Coast railway line, Queensland. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moorland railway station

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

Train stations are not automatically notable and must meet WP:GNG. Defunct station, no information on when it closed. No sources. Completely fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) redirect. The station verifiably existed, which is sufficient for this title to be a redirect to the relevant broader article if sources establishing individual notability can't be found (including in offline works). 2 minutes on Google failed to find anything useful, but that's not sufficient to state nothing exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are a few articles dedicated to the station but they are pretty short. Enough for GNG though:

"MOORLAND STATION". Northern Champion. 1931-03-25. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
THNSW (2019-06-20). "Moorland Station grant project complete". THNSW. Retrieved 2024-10-06.

This database possibly has more coverage as well: TROVE, someone can take a look and see if more sourcing can be found from there Jumpytoo Talk 01:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think those sources meet the threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A brief press announcement that fails NOTNEWS and a blurb by an org involved in the station's restoration are not sufficient for, or even contributory toward, GNG. That even the government-funded heritage society focused on transport history says There is little information available on Moorland Station is surely evidence that offline sources don't exist on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz Khan's invasions of Mewar

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

Non-notable campaign. Only a POVFORK of Mughal conquest of Mewar, article was also created by a sockpuppet. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a redundant WP:POVFORK relying mostly on misrepresentation of the cited sources and is not notable on its own.
- The first source[10] contradicts this article: "Between 1576 and 1585, Pratap foiled several expeditions headed by Mughal generals. Among them were battle-hardened and experienced commanders like Qutb-ud-din Khan, Raja Bhagwant Das of Amber, Shahbaz Khan, and Jagannath Kachchwaha."
- The second source also contradicts this article's result: "Shāhbāz Khān made a renewed attempt at suppressing the Rānā who retired to the hills, but the Mughuls re-turned unsuccessful. Six years later another expedition was sent by Akbar under Zafar Beg and Jagannātha, the Kāchhwāhāh, which met with the same fate."
- The third source doesn't concern this topic and mostly focuses on the broader Mughal conquest of Mewar. Nxcrypto Message 01:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no point in creating several articles on the same subject by copying the content. I have been nominating such poorly framed articles for a while.-Admantine123 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nominator and Adamantine123, I agree. The article is poorly cited and non-notable. GrabUp - Talk 12:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Khalil

AfDs for this article:

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

I draftified this PROMO BLP because I don’t think it meets the NAUTHOR or even GNG. However, the creator of this BLP, who’s also a newbie and might have a COI, reverted my changes. So, I feel like my only option now is to nominate this BLP for deletion which relies on unreliable sources. Previously, it was created by our v. prolific sock master Nauman335 and deleted via AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been reviewed, then why AFD. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. But now this is a well referenced article. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titipupo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Titipupo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Titipupo: This article has been reviewed But I don’t see any evidence that the review was approved or even reviewed, as you mentioned. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. What led you to this conclusion? Did you write the version that was deleted? now this is a well referenced article. No, the BLP still lacks proper references and depends on unreliable sources. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable OK I've to agree but you've to help establish WP:N. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright this text of odious promotional nature, created by a kamikaze account, as expected. -The Gnome (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are unreliable, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources have been found. Additionally, the subject fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR as no notable achievements have been found. GrabUp - Talk 12:07, 11 October 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 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Veniamis

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

Being a wealthy shipping line owner does not in and of itself confer notability. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of sources. Indicative, https://www.tradewindsnews.com/tag/theodore_veniamis, https://maritimes.gr/en/one-hundred-people-2019-32-theodore-veniamis/ Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There’s lots of sources, yet all save one is literally a listing. There’s nothing notable. Everyone in 2024 knows that we have notability standards. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't check the sources I cited, otherwise you would have seen that none of them are lists. In fact, the first one is a CATEGORY of articles that include Veniamis. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep a category with articles that includes Veniamis in the most reliable maritime newspaper isn't enough? Well, Greek internet is full about Veniamis. See here here here and much much more... Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Being on the "richest person list" isn't notable. I can find minimal coverage [11] and this [12]. Hardly enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 4 October 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 23:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 United Nations Security Council election

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

Deleted in May via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, South America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too soon, and I couldn't find anything notable about the upcoming elections that would warrant a separate article this far out. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to the insignificant coverage of this considering the fact this is in 2029 meaning information is bare, this article should be deleted. See WP:CRYSTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79lives (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 October 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. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildy Brooks

AfDs for this article:

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

She was in the original Broadway cast of Sweet Bird of Youth, but her TV and movie work is strictly routine, thus failing WP:NACTOR. (She does appear in an Al Hirschfeld caricature.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but needs editing. Original editor has not been active since 2015. I've added some External links at the bottom of the article, which are just a tip of the iceberg about what is out there on this actress. She certainly had a decent amount of acting background, but I didn't have time to research more, or clean up the article. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildy Brooks in 2015:
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Ryan, Ann L. (1997-02-26). "'Rabbi' Looks at Faith, Tolerance". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
    The article notes:
    
    The line is from Hildy Brooks' play "The Day the Rabbi Lied." The thought is from the Talmud.
    ...Brooks' one-woman show is the story of a woman named Sippie, an actress in Los Angeles who has been called in to substitute-teach a class on Jewish Spirituality -- this one about the ritual of lighting Sabbath candles.
    ...
    Brooks (and her character, Sippie) became interested in studying Judaism after accepting the role of a Hasidic rabbi's wife in a movie. Mere research became something more, including a search for her father, a man who kept his faith private -- even from his own family.
    Brooks performance is matter-of-fact: She's a smart actress, and so she allows the emotion to come from the story she is telling, and she doesn't push it. In fact, she becomes less dramatic in appearance as the show progresses -- she makes her entrance in heels, a swingy, short skirt and a to-die-for patterned velvet jacket, then changes into a long skirt, flats and a head scarf -- what an Orthodox Jewish woman would wear for modesty's sake.
  2. Quintana, Hugo (2003-02-24). "Cartas en la distancia". La Opinión. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
    The article notes:
    
    A veces en teatro lo que importa no son tanto las palabras, sino esos mágicos momentos de vida que se pueden crear en escena, y Reunion in Praguetiene muchos de ellos, elaborados con transparencia por el director Jack Betts y los actores Hildy Brooks y Jim Antonio.
    ...
    Hildy Brooks merece especial atención no sólo por su valorable interpretación, sino porque es la autora de la obra y a la vez es ella la misma actriz cuya vida se replantea en el paso de su correspondencia a la escena.
    Su labor, sustentada por la ternura que transita a través de todo el texto, choca a veces con el dilema —para un actor— de representarse a sí mismo, y si bien se la ve por momentos actuar sólo con desenvoltura, como en casa, es capaz de lograr hondura emocional en los mejores momentos de la pieza, convirtiéndolos en escenas clave.
  3. "Brooks, Husband Work Together on Play". Plainview Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2003-02-17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
    The article notes:
    
    Actress Hildy Brooks and her husband-actor, Jim Antonio, have put a new twist on art imitating life.
    Antonio is playing the part of Brooks' one-time lover, Czech sculptor Olbram Zoubek, in her play about their decades-long, long-distance relationship.
    ...
    Brooks wrote the one act "Reunion in Prague," about her brief 1967 meeting in Prague with Zoubek while she was on a movie shoot in his sculpture garden, and their ensuing 25-year relationship. Over the years they exchanged romantic letters and artwork as they shared their views on art and philosophy in a relationship that spanned America's politically turbulent 1960s and the rise and fall of communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
    Antonio knew about the relationship and even encouraged his wife to return to Prague to catch up in person with Zoubek. Brooks described the brief reunion as disappointing in her play.
  4. Kleiner, Dick (1965-01-20). "Show Beat: And now it's the mayor". Redlands Daily Facts. p. 18. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes:
    
    Mrs. Christides will be played by Hildy Brooks. At least that's her name now. It used to be Hilda Brawner, and under that name she did good things off-Broadway and on New York television. It seems that her old name has much more character than the new name, but that's the nomenclature business.
  5. "Satire Is Topic for New Group". San Mateo Times. 1963-03-27. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes:
    
    Hilda Brawner, in addition to performing on Broadway in Sweet Bird of Youth, was featured in a dozen television shows including Armstrong Theatre, Naked City, The Defenders; member of The Compass Players, Chicago.
  6. "The Subject Was Roses play". Lebanon Daily News. 1965-05-01. p. 17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes:
    
    James Antonio of Othello and actress Hilda Brawner (wed at City Hall last week) must shorten the honeymoon. She has a London contract.
  7. Langley, Frank (1963-06-07). "TV Breeds No Stars". The Decatur Herald. p. 34. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes:
    
    The potential stars of television are seen again and again. They pop up in a nurse's uniform on one show and perhaps an hour later as a fallen female in a murder mystery. Their image becomes confused with the multiple roles they play, and the audience soon accepts the mass actors and actresses--but never stars.
    Hilda Brawner is a name largely unknown in television. Yet this talented young lady has been starred in such shows as the DuPont Show of the Week, The Defenders, Naked City and a dozen others. When I ask her how it feels to be a TV star, she remarked, "I'll let you know when I become one. And that won't be through TV."
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hildy Brooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
  02:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily passes WP:GNG. There are multiple articles about her, mostly under the name Hilda Brawner. For example: Hilda Brawner: She'll Take TV, Hilda Doffs Hat to Studio, TV Actress Hilda Brawner Redefines Meaning of Star. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 China League One

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

This article isn't ready for mainspace and I believe it should be draftified until ready. It consists of mostly empty templates and only a couple of references. It was draftified soon after creation by User:Dan arndt but article creator User:Qby moved it back to mainspace almost immediately with limited improvement. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Asia, and China. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and SALT Until needed. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - WP:CRYSTAL, not currently notable. More information will likely come in the future. Demt1298 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 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. Daniel (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Albania, The Hague

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only 1 primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Netherlands. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual embassies are rarely notable, this does not appear to be an exception. Effectively just a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–North Macedonia football rivalry

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

This whole article is simply WP:OR and WP:POVFORK of other articles. The article does not even discuss any official rivalry between the Macedonian and Albanian teams but about incidents which have occurred between the fans of Macedonian and Albanian teams within North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Albania, and North Macedonia. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @StephenMacky1: You mentioned content fork, but didn't mention the articles you feel this is a fork of. There are long term geopolitical issues with these two countries and they do spill over into sport. The article is limited in it's scope and hasn't mentioned all the numerous issues, but there are always problems in the Balkans, [13]. I believe there is scope for an article with the issues regarding football rioting in the Bulkan states. However I am unsure about how much depth there is between Albania vs North Macedonia at international and club level football. This topic rivalry is a viable topic in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a content fork from the articles Anti-Albanian sentiment, Albania–North Macedonia relations and the Macedonian football teams' articles. I think the rivalries can be covered in their respective football teams' articles and some already are, I think. There are always problems but not every problem is notable to include. This is covered by WP:NOTNEWS too. Either way there is no source currently that discusses the rivalry between teams from Albania and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no football rivalry between the 2 countries, be it in national team or club level. With all due respect but this is a topic made out of thin air. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content fork. We have a load on the page about relations between the two governments and the situation regarding people of Albanian ethnicity in Macedonia. Then we have a bit about violence between ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian fans in Macedonian domestic football. This is like saying that anti-Irish bigotry in the Old Firm game is part of a Scotland v Republic of Ireland football rivalry, or that antisemitic elements of Feyenoord v Ajax represent a rivalry between the Netherlands and Israel.. And then, right at the end, we have the only competitive meetings between these teams in 2018 World Cup qualification. This user obviously likes international relations very much, but needs to learn what a football rivalry is, as this isn't the first of his pages to be like this. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. Any information on incidents at matches can be covered on individual team/club pages. Demt1298 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 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. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabarup Jatiya Vidyapith

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

No references cited and lacks coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Saurabh ^Talk? 08:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. Saurabh ^Talk? 08:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to the nominator. AFD is about the subject, not the article. Also WP:SCH is a deprecated essay. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the almost complete lack of sources that could support notability. Schools as such are no longer taking a fee pass in Wikipedia. And, lest we forget, Wikipedia is not some collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 8 October 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 all with the exception of Greater Manchester bus route 135. Route 135 can be renominated separately at any time. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 263

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester bus route 8 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination), bus routes are not inherently notable, fails GNG. Bundling the following articles that are recently created with similar notability status.

Justi yaya 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Justi yaya 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but weak keep for 135? - Wasn't a fan when these articles started being created, especially with some very low-quality images, and I observed the user wasn't listening to any of my suggestions. The history related to these routes just aren't as in-depth as, say, London Buses route 1, and it feels like they've been made just to make up the numbers. Would have put in the AfD myself but was weary of upsetting the applecart.

Having given rewriting the route 135 article a good shot, though, I think if more well-sourced notability besides the use of bendy buses (bit of a rarity in NW England) can be established, consider potentially retaining the 135 article. Wouldn't be too upset if that didn't turn up anything, however. Hullian111 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - appreciate it's frustrating when people create poorly sourced articles but there may be enough sourcing for some of these articles to meet WP:GNG. A reminder to article creator @TL9027 there are many bus route articles on Wikipedia so they can be notable, but we do need better sources than just timetables.

Often branded routes/airport routes are easier to write about. For example, Skyline 199 has [14] and [15]. Garuda3 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source on 199: [16] Garuda3 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Route 216 being similar to route 192, was a 1920-1930s tram route converted to bus operation. There will be so much to write. TL9027 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 I don't see how transportdesigned.com (source 1) could be useable as it looks like a blog (or a marketing/communications company). The other source does look good though, thank you for the comment :D Justi yaya 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The route 199 coverage is extremely WP:ROUTINE. Local newspaper coverage of a bus provider extending service to a Sunday does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is an essay, not policy. Per your below comment, you seem to be dismissing bus routes because you don't like this type of content. Garuda3 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Route 216 have this:[17]. Besides, updates will be needed as these bus routes have either joined or will join the Bee Network soon. This is a system similar to TfL which may increase their Notability.TL9027 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not adding Greater Manchester bus route 43? Since it has similar status with your nominated articles. Plus , it seems that you just want to get rid of bus route articles JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEM as Garuda3 says. In your logic, ALL bus route articles in Wiki should be deleted. TL9027 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, you can't just defend your articles by linking to Google searches that link back to the nominated articles and claiming that makes them notable. Its the equivalent of, say, claiming my 57 is notable because it appears in Google. Please remain civil about it.

You are right about the 43, though, I can't say that's got as much notability as, say, the 192 - former tramway route which experienced a bus war between Stagecoach and UK North. I'll defend the 135 but that's where I draw the line, because there just isn't anything that significant for those routes to warrant their own articles. Hullian111 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Route 216 was also a former tramway route, having similar history as the 192, also have the potential to be kept. For the 8, the past usage of bendy buses during First's era like the 135 may also make the article notable. TL9027 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TL9027: I've not looked at many of the other articles, but a quick glance at the 216 article shows many glaring errors. Consider its History section: Cooperation should be Corporation; the Ashton services mostly didn't go from tram to motor bus but from tram to trolleybus - and the 216 was one of these; Greater Manchester buses didn't exist in the 1950s, it was not created until April 1974 - and then it was branded Greater Manchester Transport, become GM Buses in the mid-1980s. an express service, the 216x - Manchester Corporation didn't use the "X" suffix to denote an express service, but a service that was not running the full length of the route - so the 216X observed all the 216 stops as far as Edge Lane, Clayton (the Manchester/Droylsden boundary), where it turned back. The trolleybuses lived until the 1980s, services are replaced by conventional buses till now. - what nonsense, the last Manchester trolleybuses ran on 30 December 1966. The grammar is also extremely poor, it's sometimes difficult to discern the intended meaning. Ref [1] doesn't support the preceding text at all. If the others are this bad, it might be better to delete and start afresh with some decently reliable sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64, can you provide your sources here? TL9027 (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several books about Manchester buses that I read in the 1980s and 1990s, that I no longer have (usually because they were borrowed from a public library) but from which I made copious notes. A 1960 map of Manchester Corporation Transport bus and trolleybus services that I do still have. This book. This webpage. This forum. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you may help adding them to the route 216 page, make it more notable. TL9027 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a transport guide. This content is unencyclopedic. Sources presented above are routine coverage and blogs which fails to establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify 135 per Hullian. I'm convinced enough to see how that one develops further. Delete the rest as indeed not notable. S5A-0043^Talk 10:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Manchester bus routes 36 • 37 has two BBC News sources - so could well be notable. The articles are too varied to be lumped together really. Garuda3 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge into new article, List of Greater Manchester bus routes. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your suggestion, you may create an article like this or use it as a reference for creating such article. Remember you will like to specify operator(s) of each route.TL9027 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was once an article with a similar name, not anymore: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Manchester. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for unencyclopedic directories of bus routes. There is an utter lack of non-routine independent coverage. The "BBC news sources" mentioned above for one of the routes are a piece that contains zero coverage of the route in question and piece about a night bus trial proposed for a couple routes that has no SIGCOV of any of them. I guess 135 could be draftified, but I don't have high hopes for it. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It appears all these articles were created quite recently outside of the AfC process to confirm they individually meet the notability requirements. And at a glance most of them certainly don't appear to be notable with currently providing sources. Open to draftifying certain articles if there is support. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather they were draftified as an alternative to deletion, I guess Garuda3 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition–Labor Gaza arrivals controversy

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

While this is certainly a policy debate in Australia, I'm struggling to see how the debate itself is suitable for a standalone Wikipedia article. The article is currently a collection of back-and-forth quotes from politicians and seems to be focused on politicians' views rather than the substantive topic of Palestinian immigration to Australia and/or Palestinian refugees in Australia, which are covered elsewhere. There are dozens of other ongoing policy debates that receive similar levels of coverage. I T B F 📢 08:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. I T B F 📢 08:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SYNTH. Outside of the political quotes, this doesn't appear to have analysis or other critical notice. Political controversies happen all the time. A collection of people "talking" to one another about an issue doesn't really make this much different than any other discourse in politics. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines and does not exhibit characteristics of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The present state of the article already includes independent, published sources spanning months, including commentary from prominent figures and groups. There has been further coverage since the creation of the article 2 weeks ago. Cf. articles in Category:Political controversies, many of which do not have a similar level of references to reliable sources. Y. Dongchen (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As has been noted this is a collection of quotes attempting to be an article and is WP:SYNTH. It needs WP:TNT at the very least. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to some specific instances of original research in the article? Do you thus also regard Hamas–UNRWA Holocaust dispute to be improper synthesis? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.) Y. Dongchen (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely a WP:SYNTH Gnan garra 08:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would class this as a WP:SYNTH. This would be better incorporated in an Australian politics or Australian policy article, rather than it's own article. Postmethod (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Sharma

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

I don't see anything except clones of this article on other websites. I have no idea how this has lasted so long without going to AFD before. The article says "was", but it would appear it should say "is", which means it falls under WP:BLP, and for that, clearly fails for inclusion under the stricter rules for biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shit, it’s a completely unsourced and blatant promotional article. Thanks for finding and nominating it. It was created back in 2012, and still, no one has been able to find or report it, lol. The article completely fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTHOR, with no sources found after searching. I think a speedy deletion under WP:G11 can be attempted before nominating it here. GrabUp - Talk 13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some person uploads a biography, looks like it was taken straight from a word processor and pasted here verbatim... I don't find any sourcing about a writer, there's a recent golfer with a similar name. doesn't appear to be this person. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete / Restore original: The original article was created by me for an author from early 1900s who had notable presence or influence in the Hindi literature (from my perspective). In recent edits, that article was overwritten for some new Akshay Chandra Sharma who I have no clue who is or why is notable. I suggest restoring to the original version. Vivek Rai (talk)

@Vivek Rai: I agree, but your version of the article also doesn’t show any notability! The lack of significant secondary sources fails WP:GNG, no notable awards fails WP:ANYBIO, and no notable books fails WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no sources on Google to establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. No sources on the page to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:20, 10 October 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 Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 2017–18#Science Room. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Room

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

Lack of notability. Note that most of the article is effectively unsourced & tagged as such. Surely if there was any true notability for this lump of fancruft a cite or two could have been whipped up. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is effectively unsourced and I don't see a way this passes WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with above, not really notable. (I would vote for a redirect to the relevant List of SNL sketches by year page, but I noticed there's been a discussion on whether to merge those pages into the main article, so I'll pass that off for now.) Spinixster (trout me!) 14:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches_introduced_2017–18#Science_Room, because there seems to be no assertion that this doesn't exist, or that a redirect would be confusing. Whether and how the SNL articles are upmerged or better curated per Spinixster, that doesn't change that an ATD is preferable to outright deletion when the only articulated issue is notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 2017–18#Science Room per Jclemens - This could very well be removed or upmerged during a cleanup of the SNL articles, but as the target currently exists, Redirecting there is fine for now. Rorshacma (talk) 20:12, 10 October 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 Shortening. ✗plicit 00:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cookeen

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

Appears to be a non-notable cooking ingredient. Google search under 'news' tab didn't turn up anything. Only source is a bare mention in a story about various brands removing hydrogenated vegetable oil. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shortening. Not enough coverage for its own article. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shortening, since not enough evidence is out there to support independent notability. If in sour mood, delete outright. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 8 October 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 00:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Niven

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources, so WP:GNG and WP:BIO aren't satisfied. Also, his works don't appear to be held in any major collections or reviewed, so WP:ARTIST is out. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Peg Slax

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with this because according this blurb which is repeated on various sites, they've been featured in NME on at least five occasions which if true, probably is SIGCOV. But there's no date or issue number to help actually find those sources. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Scattered mentions in books [18], [19] but I don't find enough to build an article. Sourcing now used in the article isn't enough, mostly imdb. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we do not have enough sources to support independent notability. Text is not saved by WP:NMUSIC either, nor by any other music-related guideline of even essay. Wikipedia is not a directory of music. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 8 October 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 00:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Void Cube

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

Topic is not notable; a web search reveals no reliable sources. Note that since I am new to AfD, I am using this singular article to test the waters as WP:BUNDLE recommends. However I intend to nominate V-Cube 7, V-Cube 6 and several other non-notable puzzles linked in combination puzzle as a group deletion later. It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are not nearly enough, if any, sources to support notability. When the article was created, the rules about inclusion were rather lax but they have since tightened up. -The Gnome (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kagarama

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

This possibly passes WP:NGEO but would be far better servied merged inside Kicukiro District due to lack of sourcing or possibility to expand prose here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rwanda. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Khai Xing

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

Fails NBAD and BLP Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Malaysia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion; definitely not notable person PPOP101 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pinoy Big Brother#Controversies and criticisms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding Pinoy Big Brother

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

WP:UNDUE for what amounts to tabloid fodder. I feel this should be consolidated to a single concise section in the main series article rather than a litany of every single controversy attached to the show. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Brother (franchise)#Controversies. At least the ones that had the authorities threatening to pull the plug on the show. Borgenland (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that huge chunks of the article are uncited and probably tainted by editors with vested WP:FANCRUFT interests. Borgenland (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main Pinoy Big Brother article and trim as much fancruft as possible. -Ian Lopez @ 14:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but also trim because we don't include every single "controversy" here, only the ones that would probably be significant enough to affect the show itself and not just the contestants (after all, it's not hard to imagine conflicts between contestants in a show like this one). --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like we have two different Merge target articles suggested here (please supply a link to an existing article any time you suggest a Merge or Redirect)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the "controversies" section as suggested in the first comment seems like the best choice. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect and trim to Pinoy Big Brother#Controversies and criticisms Most of these "controversies" are only so to local gossip shows and websites, not normal people, or were not even between the houseguests, but outside groups needing to stir up some attention for their own interests. Anything involving "A lot of criticisms by netizens" needs to be removed as it's completely unsourced. Nate • (chatter) 16:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This AFD doesn't cover draft articles in Draft or User space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Threats

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE based on sources cited. Created by either a paid or COI account on behalf of the subject (self-admitted at WP:Help desk) that has now been blocked. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a search finds the usual fluff on social media but per Dr vulpes nothing much that would establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the reviewing admin: User:Hamley24/sandbox is a mirror of the article before it was scrutinized for notability. It's full of puffery and doesn't qualify for CSD as far as I know, but should be deleted along with this article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:34, 4 October 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 167

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

Could not find any individual coverage on this object. Should redirect to List of IC objects.

Added after Praemonitus's vote: While there is coverage of the group it is a part of, I couldn't find any coverage of the object specifically. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline. I find brief discussions of IC 167 in a few studies, particularly of the NGC 697 group. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Per Praemonitus. Potential academic interest due to interaction with NGC 694. Svartner (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NASTRO. Though individual coverage of the topic is rare, there is "significant commentary" on this object. Interaction with NGC 694 is also of academic interest, per Svartner. Pygos (talk) 03:34, 5 October 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 Pinnaroo railway line, South Australia. (Fun fact: I drove within 500m of this station on Monday. Small world.) Daniel (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moorlands railway station

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

Not notable. References in the article either give passing coverage or are unrelated to the station. A basic BEFORE search uncovered nothing of any use. Should be either deleted or redirected to Pinnaroo railway line, South Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. If sources can't be found then it should be merged and redirected, pretty much every passenger railway station where existence can be verified should be a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objection to merging and/or redirecting? Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as WP:ATD. S5A-0043^Talk 06:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pinnaroo railway line, South Australia as WP:ATD. Sourcing wise I do see coverage TROVE Mallee Highway, but its talking about sheep? I can't understand if it's a naming conflict or the station also decided to go into the business of wool farming. I'm voting redirect for now but someone more knowledgeable might be able to make GNG argument here. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my Civilization VI knowledge, there's a such thing as a Cattle station or Sheep station, which is unrelated to rail transport. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete or redirect - I believe the article, although not particularly substantive, is still useful. It is also on par with the pages for a number of other smaller/rural railway stations. BakuFromAus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article is useful - and I believe it is not in its present form. AfDs are decided on policy and guidelines, rather than personal feelings. Do you have a substantive argument as to why the very limited information here could not be accommodated in the Pinaroo railway line article, especially since half of the article being discussed here is just repeating information from there in the first place? If there are other barebones stubs on rural train stations that fail GNG, then they should be merged, redirected, or deleted as well. Just because every article that potentially could be AfD'd hasn't been doesn't mean that this particular article should not be (and doing them all at once would be bad). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Topics that do not have substantial IRS coverage should not have standalone articles, especially when they can be (or already are) covered elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Carlos Vélez

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

Uncited for years and promotional. (I took out some of the more obvious promotion but some remains, such as the professional head shot). ... discospinster _talk 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Economics, and Colombia. ... discospinster _talk 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hm... this is a hard one. On the one hand, being a columnist for Semana, and his radio work at RCN (one of the two largest media companies in Colombia, where radio is still pretty important media) suggests some degree of notability. However, the only sources I can find about the guy are articles in trade focused magazines that I'm not sure are RS, or articles in RS with clear COI (i.e. a Semana profile). Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one's a bit tough. The article itself does have zero references to back up the claims made there and has for many years, as mentioned by disco. So, can we fix that? A quick Google search of the guy in the news section shows sporadic coverage from various Colombian news websites over the years, and most of the articles I've looked at (both English and translated from Spanish) don't address the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. A good reason for deletion can be provided through WP:INHERITORG: he is a man who has worked for notable businesses and organizations but does not inherit notability from said businesses and (from my observations) lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage of his actions or life. As such, I would conclude that Mr Vélez here doesn't deserve an article solely about him. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onimim Jacks

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject biography has no source to proof the statement are true. The reference from 2 to 5 are all dead links. Subject fails WP:GNG except the ref one source is to be considered which is the only source that still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Law, and United States of America. Gabriel (……?) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Nigeria, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first two sources are Wordpress blogs, the other three are dead links. A search online found no significant coverage, just some passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quick google search reveals no WP:SIGCOV. The article is badly sourced Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk? | contribs) 07:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: archive versions of sources have been found (what happened to WP:BEFORE?). She was Commissioner for Agriculture for Rivers State, which appears to be the equivalent of a Ministerial position (from Rivers State Ministry of Agriculture). PamD 08:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside being a commissioner 95% of the biography statement can’t be verified. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. You can check on WP:NOR. You are free to clear all statements with no source and we see what is left. Gabriel (……?) 11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gabriel, A commissioner in a state cabinet in Nigeria is inherently notable because they clearly pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. Would have love to withdraw the nomination but I’m afraid an admin might revert the edit due to the above reason for the delete vote. I have seen where that happened before so what do you think? Gabriel (……?) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't worry, you can actually withdraw it, but it will not be closed as that, it would be closed appropriately. In other words, just forget about the nom, it doesn't need to be withdrawn because it makes no difference from the outcome. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes the criteria for politicians as the commissioner for agriculture for Rivers State. Commissioners are members of the state cabinet. Please, read this explanatory note. Best, Reading Beans 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that deletion is not cleanup. If an article on a notable subject can be improved through normal editing, do not put it through a deletion discussion. Best, Reading Beans 15:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the holder of a statewide cabinet position, the subject passes criterion#1 of WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:NPOL, although it is currently poorly sourced and can be better, however the subject is notable and should remain. B.Korlah (talk) 18:55, 6 October 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.