Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

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

Econofoods

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 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]

New Zealand College of Business

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

Cannot find any independent secondary coverage to satisfy NCORP. Current refs are not independent or are promotional. Article was created by an SPA. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Theater

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

Fairly new article about a non-notable TV show; created by a new editor. No sources; no formatting. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Utah. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of Utah's longest running television shows and was very popular. I will be updating sources. As for formatting I will learn and improve the page. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't been able to dig up much. There is Television Horror Movie Hosts 68 Vampires, Mad Scientists and Other Denizens of the Late-Night Airwaves Examined and Interviewed that covers the show, but there is no preview available. There's also a whole self-published book The Complete Index to Salt Lake City's Nightmare Theatre which would probably be decent for information, but doesn't contribute to notability. There's this dramatic piece from the Utah Education Network that says someone hanged themselves after watching the program. Other than that, it's just passing mentions like one of my favorite things to do was to curl up with my dad on a Friday night and watch the famed horror movie show starring Sammy Terry (a play on the word cemetery), “Nightmare Theater.” The low-budget series was just scary enough to capture my interest, but not so scary that DCFS needed to be alerted. I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to wait to see what sources come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to include this note. Fischer
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consider redirecting title to Sammy Terry If you want to write about a local TV program, you need the sourcing to back up your claim. You also need to show that it has some enduring notability to it. I do not think that the Salt Lake program has that, after doing a search that would have included Utah newspapers from the last 30 years (allowing me to avoid printed titles in TV listings). However, there is a redirect target for this title...out of Indiana, where a show titled Nightmare Theater seems to have enjoyed a 27-year run at WTTV. The SIGCOV is substantial, and we have an article related to it already. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Utah show ran from 1962-1982 continuously. Fairly enduring, twenty years. Documentation noted includes television columns noting its popularity. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn’t this drafted so that the creator can be helped, instead of having to defend the page at an Afd, which is pretty stressful? Draft, please, if the creator and other users agree, speedy-draft, if such a thing exists. I don’t think that nominating a new page 20 minutes after it was created was the best approach. ’Not ready for Main space”, sure but explain it and draftify is, if the creator is a newcomer/apparently not very experienced contributor, the most constructive path imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted the page roughly. The claim that it was the longest show in Utah and coverage might be enough to Keep this. If not, redirect and merge (in)to KTVX#History please. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the Utah TV show in this article is entirely distinct from the Indiana TV show of the same name starring Sammy Terry. The Sammy Terry character was on Indiana TV from 1962 to 1989, occasionally thereafter, continuously makes personal appearances, and still produces web content; Sammy Terry has plenty of reliable sources (print news and at least one book), far beyond what the article currently references. If this article survives, it should be moved to something like Nightmare Theater (Utah), with Nightmare Theater being a redirect to Sammy Terry or a disambiguation page. Vadder (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that, even if enough sourcing demonstrating notability could be found, the Utah show is not the primary topic. The Indiana show has much more material to work with. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I did the initial page, and I believe Nightmare Theater (Utah) would be the proper title. This would avoid confusion with all the other Nightmare Theater and Theatres out there. While the show was broadcast on a Salt Lake City station, it was received statewide. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 16:15, 29 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!} 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Barlage

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

I don't think that this victim of refbombing is notable. All refs seem to be run-of -the mill stuff which are fundamenbtally about his jobs rather than about him. TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cronin (basketball). Joe Cronin, another high-ranking NBA official, his article was AfD'd and the result was keep. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeFriendlyGoodSir: that's an WP:OTHER argument which is roundly and rightfully ignored by experienced editors and admins in AfDs. The best way to defend this article would be to provide quotes demonstrating significant coverage of this article subject from high-quality sources. Usually WP:THREE would be ideal. Left guide (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only mention it because someone in that AfD made the argument that "WP:COMMONSENSE must prevail". Mr. Barlage is one of the highest ranking front office officials for a team in the NBA, a top basketball league in the world. He argued that it's "a case where WP:IAR should apply". I don't know the validity of that argument but thought i should point it out. I see a Forbes article with Barlage in it. As for quotes, I will leave that to others. Keep or Delete. You guys decide. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that Forbes piece is authored by a staff writer, so should pass the reliability test. However, most of what's in that source is discussion about the Cavaliers or interview quotes from Barlage's mouth, neither of which contribute to notability. It seems to fall short as far as secondary SIGCOV that directly discusses Barlage as an individual person; the best I could extract from that source is the following:

Barlage, entering his second season as CEO, wants to change that. He has a five-year plan that includes an international component in South America.

Left guide (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Arizona, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure on my vote yet. But I would say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cronin (basketball) is not particularly applicable given the differences in their roles. Both are high-level positions, but an NBA general manager and a head of business operations differ greatly in terms of coverage and notoriety. Because GMs are ultimately in charge and making decisions regarding the team's on-court performance, they and their actions (drafting, signing/cutting players and making trades) and are much more widely covered (and scrutinized) than handling the day to day operations of the organization (such as marketing, ticket sales, adding premium seating, etc.). Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Articles for deletion/Joe Cronin (basketball) is certainly not applicable because that's based on WP:OTHER. The only thing that matters here is whether there's enough significant coverage directly about this article subject from independent secondary reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say any full-time NBA GM (although maybe not interim) is likely notable, so could see some people correlating that to any person at the same organizational level if they don't fully understand the difference between the front-facing nature of the GM position against the others. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as there is little WP:RS significant coverage and there is no other inclusionary criteria met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 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!} 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that this fails WP:GNG. I think that there is enough significant coverage. 1,2,3 help to demonstrate this coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:51, 5 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]

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]

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]

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]

Romansh 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) 15:09, 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 Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this specific list wiki-notable? Which reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic of Romansch exonyms? I'm not aware of any policy that would presume automatic notability for lists of exonyms. There have been attempts to group exonym articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus (and some of the articles, such as Chinese exonyms, seem to be notable, due to having been discussed in sources). So, I couldn't have bundled many nominations together, and instead opted for an individual approach. Admittedly, I hadn't considered posting on Talk:Endonym and exonym, fair enough. And I also could've explained my approach, and the reasons for it, in the nominations. toweli (talk) 09:40, 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!} 21:45, 4 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]
- Comment: 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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

Gregory Wings

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

Promo UPE article. Refs are paid for PR, non-bylined content and promo articles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little coverage in The Source[1] and quite a bit about his involvement in a failed Burna Boy concert in South Africa, although the latter could be viewed as WP:1E, plus the LA Weekly coverage. It seems marginal, and the article needs a lot of work. But one or two more sources could save it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree, there is decent coverage and this can be improved not deleted. Gwatakwata (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwatakwata:@Colapeninsula: Can you give me two other sources that prove he is notable. The LA Weekly coverage is a good WP:SECONDARY but it is single reference and is likely only seen a WP:OR. WP:BLP which states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" means must have good sources. Another two and I close this. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 4 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!} 21:42, 4 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 [2], 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]

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]

Mikheil Lomtadze

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 19. Please also refer to last two AfD's. Daniel (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with WP:SIGCOV in Bloomberg News (2020, 2022, both available via The Wikipedia Library if you want to review), Forbes (authored by staff and thus reliable), Radio Tavisupleba (in Georgian), and Fortuna.ge (in Georgian). Most recently, there's SIGCOV of Lomtadze in BBC and Vedomosti on his purchase of the Wycombe Wanderers. I've also trimmed some of the fluff and added some of these sources to the article. It still needs more cleanup, and I would support protection on the page to address the history of COI/UPE editing -- but the sources show he meets the notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The Forbes article is by "former staff". There's no reason to believe it had meaningful editorial oversight. —Cryptic 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)~~ Never mind; the byline was changed after publication (what a rotten thing to do). Contemporary archive lists the author as staff. —Cryptic 02:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As AfD1 closer, just stating I haven't had time or interest to review changes and support whatever conclusion emerges here. As I said in the DRV, it was probably time for a new discussion since much can change in two years. Star Mississippi 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kazakhstan, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes article presented above is more about the company than this person. The Bloomberg articles are mostly about this person, but more about the companies that lose money. I can only find a BBC article that he bought a football/soccer club, which is minimally about this person and more about the transaction and is mostly quotes [3] from the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the foreign language sources? And the Forbes source is definitely SIGCOV of Lomtadze. It's a long feature and he is discussed in at least half the paragraphs, and it includes numerous biographical details. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still leaning delete. This is a fundamentally, and I think irreparably, biased article about a person who's spent a considerable amount of money on PR (for example, the purchase of the minor-league football team mentioned above). A neutral article is perhaps possible. It wouldn't look anything like this. —Cryptic 02:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Notability is not the issue, although it appears borderline from the sources: the person is certainly rich enough to arrange for whatever ostensibly third-party coverage he wants. The issue is that, as noted in the DRV and in the last AfD, this article is an exercise in self-promotion, a product of undeclared paid editing, and in the face of such a campaign there is little chance of our article staying neutral. The current article should be deleted and recreated only after submission to AfC of a draft by an established editor with no ties to the subject; such a new article should also reflect any possibly (if not likely) unflattering aspects of this person's career. Sandstein 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a strange reading of our guidelines to insist that a WP:BLP must include unflattering information. I’m sure said info exists (I added a Bloomberg story about a big hit to the guy’s net worth, and there’s nothing stopping other editors from finding and adding it), but to make the inclusion of negative information a prerequisite for having an article on a living person seems unsupported by policy. As for your requirement for AFC, the article was substantially edited by PaulW, a long established editor, and accepted at AFC by Dr Vulpes, another long established editor, which is indeed what triggered this discussion, which would seem to meet your condition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs are required to adhere closely to NPOV, and NPOV indicates that subjective and effusive praise is out of place in what purports to be encyclopedic content. An insistence that our content comply with NOT is not inconsistent with the biographies of living persons policy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the effusive praise? I'm not seeing it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage provided by Dclemens1971, which establish notability. There may be some bias in the tone of the article but that can be removed via cleanup. I strongly disagree with Cryptic’s claim of this bias being irreperable.Frank Anchor 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SIGCOV identified and further explanations by User:Dclemens1971. AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Dclemens1971 and Gidonb. I would give somewhat more weight to the BBC article, for whom this subject is the headliner. BD2412 T 03:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:13, 4 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Planet Half-Life

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

Not verifiable and doesn't appear notable. Unsure if it is different from Gamespy's other Planet Network websites, maybe merge to GameSpy. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources found here, here, here and here. Due to the age of the site, they all appear to be entirely WP:OFFLINE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good searching, although these look like web directory entries. IgelRM (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another source [4]McYeee (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this is from Kyle Orland's blog. I don't think commenting on the skeptical article is significant coverage of the website. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional sources: Strana Igr: [5], PC PowerPlay: [6], PC Accelerator: [7]. I think there's enough of these write-ups now that the article passes GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source analysis of newly found ones to see if they meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, The Village Voice, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 21 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!} 18:53, 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]

Comment I can't access ProQuest, but I'll assume those are decent coverages. My library card might allow me access, I might just boot up their website and look... Otherwise, mentioned here [8], but that's not enough for notability. There's some coverage in Gscholar linked in the deletion template, but these are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, if you log in to Wikipedia Library first, then launch ProQuest from that page, you should have the same access. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:55, 4 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]
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]

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]

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]

Flow (software)

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: only the ComputerWorld article meets in-depth coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee lens investing

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A vague term invented by a company for something that it does. The references have a bit on the company (most of them just passing along self-published material) and the leader, but there is no coverage much less the required in-depth coverage on what this actual is. As result the article is just vague arm waving and related platitude about refugees without even cover covering the putative topic North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats your plan to get it delete. There is quite heavy block of academic references on it. I reviwed it and thought the chances of deletion were slim. scope_creep^Talk 20:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism was coined by John Kluge Jr. and Tim Docking of the Refugee Investment Network in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article and it does not appear to have gotten independent, reliable source coverage since. The Rockefeller Foundation report was coauthored by Kluge and co-published by his organization. A World Bank report on the topic was peer-reviewed by Tim Docking (see page 6), which calls its independence into question. The Bloomberg piece (viewed via the WP Library) and the EuroMoney article are WP:INTERVIEWs and thus not independent. The Forbes piece is a "Forbes contributor" source and thus unreliable. The citation to the Robin Wilson book appears to be an attempt at WP:SYNTH as the source does not mention refugee lens investing, Kluge, or the RIN at all. The MarketLinks blog post is essentially a primary source, since it is published by the host of an event that highlighted the Refugee Investment Network on a panel. If anyone turns up other coverage, happy to reconsider my assessment, just ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 4 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Global Securities Lending

AfDs for this article:

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

Not able to find anything on 2i Media, GSL, Jon Hewson and Mark Latham apart from PR articles Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Finance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 [9]^PQ, and El País [10], and Complex [11], and maybe this Slate podcast [12] (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.

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]

Ulugʻbek Shodibekov

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

Not notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:SINGER. An earlier version of the article falsely claimed that he has received the State Nihol Award. It's not a state award, nor does the cited (and unreliable) source mention anything about any award. Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry entirely lack WP:RELIABILITY.

Kun: an interview with the subject of the entry.
Malumot: a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
Savol-javob: another Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
Daryo: another interview with the subject of the article.
Uzmedia: a highly unreliable entertainment blog.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ^talk 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Uzbekistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 4 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.

George Street tram stop

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

Train stations are not automatically notable and need to meet WP:GNG. This individual tram stop which is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop does not meet WP:GNG. Both sources are primary and do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky one. I agree that "a raised piece of concrete" appears not to be notable. However I see from the Tramlink article that every stop on the system has a blue link. Are we proposing to delete all of these? I would also imagine that there are many railway stations (or "halts") around the world which have minimal infrastructure, but nevertheless have their own article. To give an example, the tram stops listed in List of Manx Electric Railway stations each have their own article, despite having minimal infrastructure and much less traffic than the Croydon Tramlink (and the Manx rolling stock being more flimsy than that in Croydon). Ehrenkater (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. If you find other non-notable articles, please nominate them for deletion. Please assess this AfD on its own merits. If this AfD results in a consensus to delete/redirect then we can do that for other non-notable Croydon stops. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manx Electric Railway has been around a century longer than Tramlink, so there are plenty of books about the history of the system that are used as sources in the articles about it. I suspect it'll take a few more decades for Tramlink to be in that situation... Adam Sampson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was clear consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop that notability of these stops should be discussed as a set, not by individual AfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#RfC: Notability and Tramlink stops that AfDs for individual stops were not a good use of editor time. I recommend you withdraw this AfD and work with editors from those past discussions to reach a conclusion about which (if any) articles should go to AfD, and batch them accordingly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely extraordinary. No attempt to address the notability of this stop. We've been told by several editors from this topic area that some tram stops are notable and others are not. So there's no point taking a set to AfD. Now you're saying we can't take individual tram stops to AfD, either. Isn't that convenient? AusLondonder (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some stops being clearly notable does not mean you can't take others to AfD. All I am requesting is that you discuss with other editors to figure out which subset of the stops would make a reasonable AfD bundle(s), and then take that bundle(s) to AfD. For example, Church Street tram stop, Centrale tram stop, and Reeves Corner tram stop are all extremely similar to George Street tram stop. It would make far more sense to discuss their notability at the same time rather than in multiple AfDs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And on what grounds does that lead to arguing for keep as you have done? AusLondonder (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary-sourced literal wide spot in the road with no evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. Completionism does not and cannot justify keeping this nor forcing an all-or-nothing process that cannot produce consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a discussion about how best to cover articles about stops on Croydon Tramlink, which stops are notable enough for articles (individually or as part of e.g. a mainline station articles), and where and how to merge the content about those that are not individually notable. Under no circumstance though is there a justification for deletion of any of these titles - those that are not individually notable should be (after the aforementioned discussion) merged and redirected not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be voting for Merge or Redirect (and you can do so with the stated intent of pending the result of that other discussion), not vote Keep without actually presenting a Keep argument for notability of the subject matter. Silver seren^C 23:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any indication of notability from available sources. I hope someone can present some at some point, but none are evident currently. The closer should remember that AfD discussions are about determining notability of a subject matter and not about discussions of Merging or Redirecting (though those can be outcomes of AfD discussions). Thus, any Keep votes that don't make an actual argument of notability on policy grounds needs be disregarded when determining the outcome of the AfD. Silver seren^C 23:59, 4 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[13] 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]

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]

2021 Kemerovo Let L-410UVP-E crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per nom, non notable run of the mill incident. tragedy doesnt neccestate an article. Lolzer3k 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baduizm World Tour

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Baduizm World Tour. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗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 [14] and this [15]. 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.

Chughtai Lab

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

Fails WP:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a very prominent lab within Pakistan. I think it should be tagged for a rewrite or something like that. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:42, 22 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 Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗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.

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]

Super Black Racing

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

Defunct and unsuccessful racing team that only competed for three seasons. The few citations are trivial & routine coverage of a sports team, failing NCORP. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Motorsport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Segeč

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 4 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]

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]

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, [16]. 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]

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 or WP:SCH. 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]

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.

Greater Manchester bus route 43
Greater Manchester bus route 471
Greater Manchester bus route 368
Greater Manchester bus route 201
Greater Manchester bus route 203
Greater Manchester bus route 216
Greater Manchester bus route 11
Greater Manchester bus route 163
CAT5 Cheshire Cat
Greater Manchester bus route 100
Greater Manchester bus route 135
199 Skyline
Greater Manchester bus route 59
Greater Manchester bus route 18 (Stagecoach Manchester)
Greater Manchester bus route 8
Greater Manchester bus routes 36 • 37
Greater Manchester bus route 103
Greater Manchester bus route 330
Greater Manchester bus route X50 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 [17] and [18]. Garuda3 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source on 199: [19] 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:[20]. 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]
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]

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]

B. R. Nagesh

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

Lack of references and don't think this is notable. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 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) 10:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

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

Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Chandra 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]
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]

Asian Cinemas

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

Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Baehr

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand-alone list. This page falls beyond that primary criterion. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 1.3 million attorneys in the US. I don't see any justification for why Kristina Baehr meets Wikipedia standards for notability. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC with WP:SIGCOV in Law.com, CNBC and KXAN Austin. See source table below.Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the CNBC and KXAN articles perpetuate misinformation and are not reliable medical sources. The concept of airborne toxic mold is long-discredited. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not relying on them for claims about mold and the article has been edited (by you) to include appropriate information that balances claims made by the subject. We're asking if they are generally reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. They are and they do. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Law.com, https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/08/18/3-8m-texas-verdict-lawyer-leaves-intellectual-property-practice-for-toxic-torts/?slreturn=2024100483307	See RSN discussions here, here	✔ Yes
CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/what-homeowners-need-to-know-about-toxic-mold-exposure.html		✔ Yes
KXAN, https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/how-toxic-mold-cost-one-austin-family-their-home-health/	Major local news station	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep: Article has sources and the person is notable. Dealing with articles about lawyers is always a little tricky. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971 and Dr vulpes. Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Electric Traction Company (Mumbai)

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

due to its lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it difficult to establish notability. Additionally, the content primarily relies on primary sources and promotional material, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CESC Limited, the company that this firm was ultimately merged into per Raman Dubey, 2015, as an AtD. No standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 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]

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]

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]

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 [21], [22] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Dar es Salaam School of Journalism

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGCRIT. I couldn't find multiple reliable sources, which are independent and address the organisation in depth and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, Schools, Africa, and Tanzania. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([23] [24] [25] [26]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa

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

I have found next to nothing online that establishes notability for this organisation. The content could possible be merged to National Library of New Zealand as they seem to be the main drivers of the project. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:54, 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} 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manouchehr Behzadi

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

Apparent memorial page for an Iranian activist based on related or possibly unreliable sources. Holding senior positions in Tudeh does not seem to me to amount to a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Gül

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

Being mayor of a town of 50,000 doesn’t make for a WP:NPOL pass, and despite his local controversies I don’t think the subject is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 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]

Writing Rock Township, Divide County, North Dakota

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

Fails WP:NTOWN. All references I found were either trivial, census/directory information, or referring to the historical site. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't necessarily disagree that WP:NTOWN is failed here, but I do want to mention that there are a plethora of city-related articles that fail this test. Should we delete them all, too? I believe that simply having the historical site there makes it much more notable and worthy of an article than thousands of other places covered on Wikipedia. I should note that I also made this article within the scope of WP Cities, and adhered to their guidelines for US places, where applicable. SouthernDude297 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should be deleting and merging more places like this. The township is not notable because there's a historic site within it; that fact is also at Divide County, North Dakota. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is NTOWN violated? It is a populated, officially recognized place. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of its sources (or any that I could find) confer notability. As for its current sources, census data and GNIS info does not provide notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NTOWN is a notability guideline which specifically addresses this class of article. While the first reference is not useful, the census most definitely is a reliable source and all that's needed to satisfy NTOWN. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes reliability, but not notability; which NTOWN explicitly excludes census data from determining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought Townships were always kept _pbp 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of its legal recognition that would definitively meet the criteria for the presumption of notability for NTOWN. GNIS says its a civil township, which would likely count as being legally recognized, but GNIS isn't reliable for the declaration of that. Further, I can't find any information from Divide County (which it is located in) explaining its status, beyond what just looks like tax information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this would help, but here it, and the rest of the Divide Co. townships, on a map published by the Divide County government, found here. SouthernDude297 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It contributes to reliability, but not inherently its notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. It's not true that townships are always kept. As seen at List of townships in North Dakota, only a small portion of the state's more than 2,500 townships even have articles since there's literally nothing to say about them beyond the census statistic. Only 1,314 of these townships actually have local governments. These are also not the same as towns and NTOWN does not really apply: the entirety of state was historically divided into townships and most including this one are mere artifacts and statistical areas. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Can you point to a previous example of a North Dakota Township being deleted? Have they actually been deleted, or just never created? _pbp 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any others specifically in North Dakota, but there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of La Harpe Township, Allen County, Kansas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averasboro Township, Harnett County, North Carolina. I do not believe these townships need their own articles and that the very limited information can be (and already is) covered in the county article and township list. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the applicability of the ones you've listed. The Kansas ones seem to overlap with other entities and the North Carolina ones seem to be legally defunct. This is neither, it just only has three people in it. _pbp 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Wikipedia:OTHER is an argument NOT to make in AFD discussions, so don't really matter. Djflem (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was that township articles are always kept. It isn't true, as he showed by these examples. WP:OTHER is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHER is relevant whether claiming they are kept or not kept.Djflem (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the townships which have elected boards, Writing Rock is among [https://www.nd.gov/government/local-government 1,314 of 2500 mentioned above) (see: https://dividecountynd.hosted.civiclive.com/county_government/county_offices/auditor/township_officers and https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t58c04.pdf), so it is defined geographic populated place and political entity, (https://www.ndstudies.gov/gr4/citizenship/part-3-local-government/section-3-township-government) which pass Wikipedia:NPLACE, plus it's home of historic site.Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. We do not keep township articles in every state because their importance varies wildly. For example, in North Carolina they were enacted and then almost immediately ignored. I get the impression that in ND they have some function with land use/zoning matters, but they otherwise do not appear to provide any of the other aspects of local government; I could not find anything that outlined what their powers are but I found a state land use form requiring a township officer signature. Be that as it may, I note that the list of officers in the state website gives the names of three people living at the same address which indeed is within the township, and if you believe the census, those same three people are the only people living in the township! It's easy but meaningless to hold an election when the only people who can vote are the officials (and I note that of the other three listed, one lives elsewhere in the county and the second lives in another county; the third has no address provided). I'm also quite dubious that location of the eponymous monument is a point of notability for the township; I had to verify it with a map. The fact that such a large percentage of the townships lack officials indicates their relative lack of importance, and when it comes down to it, it appears all that we can give for them as a rule is geography and populations, which can be served well enough with a map and a table, respectively, in the county article.

As far as ND township articles as a group, it doesn't look as though a great many have been created. One or two users started mass-adding them but did not get far. I found this stale user page for example which for the first county has a reasonable idea for a county table structure. And it contains most of what one would put in an article, so I'm not seeing the need for individual articles. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(North Carolina and North Dakota are not the same state.) Would seem that the name of the Writing Rock monument likely lends its name to the township, and is an important piece of history located within it.Djflem (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I an aware of which state is which, and if you think I confused them, you need to reread the passage. Yes, "it would seem", but that doesn't give the township any notability, and never mind that I have come across no source for that belief. The point is, townships are not necessarily that important in the state scheme of things, and they range from non-existent (Maryland) to vestigial (NC) to possibly more important than counties (NJ). What I'm seeing in ND is that they appear to be of minimal importance, especially given that around half of them have no governance and appear to be just lines on a map. Indeed, the very difficulty of finding out why they exist and what function they serve is an indicator that as individual bodies they are probably no more than minor administrative divisions. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Seemed you wanted to make a point about NC as being relevant to ND and therefore mentioned it in the 2nd sentence about ND. Djflem (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As Djflem noted, this community is included as one of the townships with governmental officials and appears to be a political entity. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Regardless of whether a single household is actually being treated as a "political entity", NGEO only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. That this extant US place has no accessible sources on it beyond directory-level info shows it has no need for a standalone article at this time. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated, legally recognized place and there is enough in-depth historical information about Writing Rock Township specifically in books such as Stories and Histories of Divide County (1964) – the main section about the township is on p. 454 but there are also other pages discussing various aspects of its history. In addition, as others have mentioned, the township is the location of Writing Rock State Historical Site, which makes it distinctive. Newspapers.com turns up obituaries about people who were born in or homesteaded in Writing Rock Township; a five-year-old girl who was killed by a horse in 1960; a farmer who threatened his neighbors with a rifle and tried to kill himself when approached by police in 1920 – even if none of this is worth mentioning in the article, it demonstrates that it was a real place where people lived (and not "just" a directory listing). (Of those clippings the most interesting one is the Bismarck Tribune article about how the 1928 election returns for Writing Rock Township were not counted by the North Dakota secretary of state because the automobile transporting them was destroyed by fire on its way to Crosby.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Exchanger

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

This crypto exchange does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search does not turn up any coverage in reliable sources, only mentions in crypto forums and blogs. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items [27]... And putting in the article that you don't do "know your customer" analysis, nor money laundering tracking is pretty much admitting you're an illegal financial operation, just an fyi. That's not really helping notability, and admitting to illegal activities on the open web might not be the best business decision. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 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]

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]

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.

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]
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]