Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:04, 25 June 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 24	June 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎. There is a consensus for a Procedural close and no support, on any level for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrothelium chulumanense

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

Does not meet WP:Sigcov required for all articles. No sources exist for this topic beyond the single cited (primary) source containing the initial description of the species. Esculenta (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All species are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to what policy? Esculenta (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPECIES says: Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD. As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy or guideline, and "species articles are kept because they're kept at AfD" is a circular deletion rationale not based on any policy. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPECIES is not a policy, but a sentence describing common outcomes of species' articles at AfD, and is thus a circular argument that shouldn't be used to keep the article ("this article should be kept because species article are usually kept). Now what policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Esculenta (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as this is nomination is strictly to prove a point. JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Esculenta (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per JoelleJay. (Incidentally – keep, as it summarizes valuable information for the reader. This is Wikipedia's key purpose: to be an encyclopedia. This article is encyclopedic; and it is not excluded by WP:NOT, therefore it is notable.) Cremastra (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can no-one answer this: What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Per WP:Encyclopedic: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful." Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's not what you said? You called the article "encyclopedic". How you and I might define the word "encyclopedic" may be different, so I went to WP:Encyclopedic, and quoted a sentence from that page to counter your argument of it being "encyclopedic". Now back to the important question for this AfD: What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Esculenta (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, a single article in a reliable academic publication constitutes significant coverage. Applying standards meant for athletes and movie actors to taxa would damage the encyclopedia, not help it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this exemption to normal WP:SIGCOV rules for species written down as policy? Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are made for the encyclopedia, and not the encyclopedia for the policies. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no WP:SIGCOV exemption for species? Esculenta (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is encyclopedic, and WP:NSPECIES is good. Also, seems to be WP:POINT. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSPECIES appears to be bad, as it doesn't address cases like these, which lack enough sigcov to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. Still not seeing any policy-based rationale to keep this article. Esculenta (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / procedural close. (i) All species are encyclopedic and deserve articles in this encyclopedia, (ii) a potential lack of SIGCOV is not and should not be the end of the world, and (iii) this nomination is purely done to prove a point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. From WP:TOOSOON: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." This article simply does not meet that criteria, and, according to existing policies, should not yet exist on Wikipedia. Esculenta (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the nominator, and nominators don't vote in their own AfDs; we already know the nominator supports deletion. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close Disingenuous and POINTy; you don't attempt to alter established handling of tens of thousands of articles by trying hammer a wedge into one random example. Stick to the high-level discussions for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:07, 26 June 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.

1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron

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

The article contains one reference, which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Because almost nothing is sourced, there's no point in making an effort to merge material. Indefatigable (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group: There is absolutely nothing significant about the article. Simply redirect to the major article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:34, 4 July 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Who series 13. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karvanista

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

Though a decently recurring character in a series of Doctor Who, Karvanista doesn't really have significant coverage. Only sources cited in Reception are routine coverage for Doctor Who (Sources that are basically plot summary explaining who a character is for readers, which is done whenever a new character is introduced/re-introduced into the series) and the only sources findable in a search; beyond Flux, there really isn't anything talking about him in a significant capacity. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per nom. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. There aren't enough sources discussing this with WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, an AtD redirect exists either at List of Doctor Who supporting characters or Doctor Who series 13. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be deleted, and a redirect can be created by any editor who feels strongly enough. Doctor Who series 13 works. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Liz Houghton. Rationale for merge looks strong and no arguments have been presented to the contrary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Liz Houghton as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ where a potential merger target can be identified, if needed. Star Mississippi 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New White Sox Stadium

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

This is a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of Illinois on the proposal along with the new Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories... Roberto221 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per nom. The proposal has not yet been approved for a stadium that may or may not be built. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(Duplicate vote struck) If you delete this, then what do you do with the other proposed stadiums/arenas?: [1], [2]

As I stated before, then it gets moved to [3] and in the case of arenas, [4] Roberto221 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 22:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument in AFDs. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this article different than all the other articles on the Category:Proposed_stadiums_in_the_United_States page? Don't give me the excuse that it's WP:TOOSOON since they all follow the same criteria. If you can see/read all the other articles, they are not different other than their proposed locations. And I'll use the other articles to make a point and show the inconsistencies in this logic...Roberto221 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those probably could be draftified or deleted as well (each would need examined individually), but the sole topic of this discussion is the White Sox proposed stadium. Frank Anchor 11:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of the Chicago White Sox#2024 season: Worst start in franchise history as an alternative to deletion, since this topic doesn't (yet) appear to transcend the limitations of WP:NOTNEWS to merit its own article. Left guide (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure the 2024 season is an appropriate target. The stadium won’t open in 2024, and I see it highly unlikely construction would even begin this year. Frank Anchor 11:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a merge, I suggest the merge/redirect go to The 78, which is the area where this stadium is suggested to be built. Angryapathy (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – As WP:ATD. I'm also not opposed to deleting Svartner (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This needs to be merged somewhere. It will undoubtedly be a large, fully documented piece shortly, as more coverage inevitably appears. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact purpose of draft space. Frank Anchor 10:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to TvOne (Indonesian TV network)#News One. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabar (TV program)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Has zero sources other than their own website, and has zero content on the subject other than a program schedule. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage of this TV program, and what's used now for sourcing are TV Guide-type listings, not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tvOne (Indonesian TV network)#News One. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above, as it lacks notability as a standalone article. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TvOne_(Indonesian_TV_network)#News_One: is treated there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pendergrass

AfDs for this article:

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

Pendergrass seems to be just under notability, with a partial nomination in a small award and few roles.

Pendergrass has voiced several side characters in multiple works in the Yo-Kai Watch franchise and characters in the PBS Space Racers series. He does not seem to have had any other roles. He states that he wrote several jingles for the Yo-Kai Watch franchise.

As part of a group of actors, he was likely nominated for Best Vocal Ensemble in an Anime Feature Film/Special by Behind the Voice Actors, a smaller source which is mostly a database but does produce the awards as editorial content. Details on the award are a bit muddled, as IMDB states that it was the 2017 award and gives the actor names, but their website states that it was the 2016 award, though the archived version does not display the actor names for the movie awards. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Video games, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary coverage, 1 major role, and maybe won a minor award, doesn't meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NACTOR. --Mika1h (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:COMPOSER. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Pendergrass also has no credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't think WP:NACTOR is met here since there seems to be only one major role and I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met either. Link20XX (talk) 16:38, 29 June 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.

7 Intelligence Company

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

The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This unit is part of the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, part of the Canadian Intelligence Corps. Upmerge to Canadian Intelligence Corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zaire (government in exile)

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

Do not meet with critera guideline. No centered sources before 2024 Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 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 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wheatley2 (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not having enough sources isn't a good reason to delete a page of an organization, especially since it attempted a coup against the DRC Government. If people want to learn about said coup they would also like to learn about the organization that did it, deleting this would not be helpful. Eehuiio (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about coup and organization are both sufficiant. Panam2014 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above, but only secondarily sourced prose and perhaps the image. The primary sourced prose seems OR, the infobox is entirely unhelpful, and the secondary sources while noting the topic do not show independent notability. The next step up to merge to is United Congolese Party. In the case this also shares similar notability issues, that could all be merged to Christian Malanga, but that may be a separate discussion. CMD (talk) 07:31, 4 July 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. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Pennsylvania

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

This article was created by Aearthrise by copy-pasting sections from five already existing articles [5]. As with other articles edited by this user, the sources that are not copied from other articles are outdated and/or have been falsely given a more recent date. In this case two sources were added the publication by Kohl is from 1856 and does not mention the German translation given (which is also grammatically incorrect) and does not describe these two regions with this single term. The second source has a false publication date (it was printed in 1899 not in 1971) and also does not contain the term. Only four articles link to this page, all of them articles from which information was copied to make this one. The are no inter-Wikilinks and a Google search links back to Wikipedia. I propose this article is deleted for these reasons as well as consisting of information already present on Wikipedia. Vlaemink (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely synthsis, not a cohesive topic. Please do not do this shit of just copying material from other pages and pretending it's its own article. Use appropriate summary style or excerpts if you want to reference other pages, rather than just introducing duplication with no new content. There is simply no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", you're just combining related topics. A more appropriate name might be something like Germans in Pennsylvania but not as an article that just copies content from elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of evidence of this region, and it's mentioned in scholarship. German Pennsylvania was a larger historical region where the Palatines and other Germans inhabited (which included Germantown settled by Francis Pastorius, and is where Benjamin Franklin lived), and it's also now used to refer to the parts of the modern Pennsylvania Dutch Country. You say there is no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", and that we should make a post called "Germans in Pennsylvania" (which we already have Pennsylvania Germans) but that's incorrect. There is ample evidence for German Pennsylvania, especially reading older sources (because it describes an older area since colonial times).
- The Centennial History of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Kutztown Centennial Association (Kutztown, Pa.) Kutztown Publishing Company, 1915 pg. 120:
- The Pennsylvanier was the leading mone-making paper of the county, because the language of the people was Pennsylvania German and all the sales of farm stock, commonly called "vendues," characteristic of German Pennsylvania to this day, were published in the German paper and well paid for.
- German American Annals ...: Devoted to the Comparative Study of the Historical, Literary, Linguistic, Educational and Commercial Relations of Germany and America Volume 2, Macmillan Company, 1899 pg. 43:
- Various strata of sources have been exploited in writing the history of the Germans in Pennsylvania- (1), the surface sources... (2), the German prints (consisting of early German prints issued in America and Germany presenting invaluable matter touching colonial events in German-Pennsylvania)
- The Pennsylvania-German, Volumes 3-4, Rev. P.C. Croll, 1902, pg.180:
- The first place the Germans are a most important numerical factor in our national life. German immigration began when on 6th of October, 1683, Daniel Pastorius and his company landed in Philadelphia and subsequently founded Germantown... Pennsylvania has always been a banner State of German immigration. It has been asserted it has been asserted that three-fifths of Pennsylvania have German blood running in their veins... A German Pennsylvania farmer by the name of Klein has recently held a family reunion. His four sons were present and their names had been changed to Kline, Small, Little and Short. There are today seven hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania speaking that homely and mellow Pennsylvania-German dialect, and as the Philadelphia Ledger said recently, "It were a pity if this dialect would soon die out."
- The Pennsylvania-German Society, Volume 6, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1896, pg.36:
- If these three of our eastern counties can boast of a group of men like these, who have done so much in but a single department of the modern sciences, it certainly furnishes good ground for laudable race-pride, and ought to put to shame that ignorant class of our country-men, who are wont to hold German Pennsylvania in much the same regard as Boeotia was held by the ancient Greeks.
- Pennsylvania-German Dialect Writings and Their Writers, Volume 26, Harry Hess Reichard, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1918, pg.65:
- For a Pennsylvania-German Kalenner which he edited in 1885 he wrote a longer poem in en parts entitled "Vum Flachsbaue." This is a veritable epic on the raising of flax in ten short cantos. This poem ought properly be illustrated with drawings of tools and implements found nowadays only on grandfather's garrett or in the museumns for, with flax-raising entirely out of vogue in German Pennsyvlania, or, whre it is still aised, by means of modern appliances, such terms as Flachs Britsch, Hechle, Brech, etc., are, to Pennsylvania Germans of today, words of a time that is past.
- Pennsylvania Farming: A History in Landscapes Sally McMurry, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017:
- One Pervasive type, though, seems to have some association with Pennsylvania German culture. It was so common that it has been dubbed the "Pennsylvania farmhouse" and used as a key indicator (along with the Pennsylvania forebay bank barn) for charting what geographers call the "Pennsylvania Culture Region." The "Pennsylvania farmhouse" occurs throughout German Pennsylvania, but many extant examples and good field data come from Adams and York Counties.
- This vernacular form seems to be strongly (though not exclusively) associated with German Pennsylvania, yet its cultural meaning is elusive.
There are many more citations for German Pennsylvania that I can give, but this number should be sufficient to demonstrate that the concept "German Pennsylvania" is established and notable, and isn't just "synthesis" as purported by Reywas92. Aearthrise (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to Vlaeminks charges about "outdated information," he doesn't make a case why the information from older books is outdated. He also claims I gave a false date of publication, but this can be disproven with the 1971 source here: [6].= Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aearthrise: You claim you have disproven that the source you added was published in 1899, some 125 years ago. Instead you reassert that your book was instead published in 1971 for which you provided a link. Could you please explain to me how this can possibly be correct, given that the author of this book (Julius F. Sachse) died in 1919 aged 77? Vlaemink (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making and argument that has nothing to do with what I said; I just pointed out that your claim that I added a false date was wrong, and I clearly showed the 1971 publication for the source. Books are republished all the time, and this is just a republication. Aearthrise (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that these are referring to a specific place or region, rather conceptually describing the state's Germans and where they live. I see this analogous to saying "Polish Chicago" or "Cuban Miami", referring to a population and culture. In your third quote, "A German Pennsylvania farmer" is combining two adjectives that he is a German farmer and a Pennsylvania farmer. Moreover, copy-pasting sections from other articles doesn't make a new article like this. Maybe start over in draft space so you're not just synthesizing content that was about the specific groups rather than the topic as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the term is both awkward and ambiguous, but there is no topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the quotes furnished above, I don't see a clear indication that "German Pennsylvania" is a well-defined geographical area, as opposed to a generic reference to parts of Pennsylvania where Germans live. Choess (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which honestly surprised me - given the quote and the academic search I performed, I thought I'd be arguing to !keep this article. However, none of the academic literature particularly contributes to notability, only using the term in passing without defining it, or is part of a single academic's research, including their masters/PhD dissertation. I just don't see enough continued usage of the term in scholarly papers that would allow us to write an entire article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Dezign

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Denmark, and France. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any other significant coverage of the group. The only somewhat reliable mention I've found is this article related to the Beatles which is not enough to establish notability.Uffda608 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to prove that the subject is eligible for entry here. Standing on one source since its creation in 2004 yet no available sources that could improve it. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to British Rail Class 755 with a hatnote to Prussian G 8. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class 755

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

After 2 reverts, I have decided to start a discussion on whether class 755 should redirect to British Rail Class 755. The reason is because of the fact most of them searching this term is likely looking for the one in the UK. the pageviews also give a picture, having received over 10x the number of views. The only other topic is Prussian G 8 which is not titled that way so that is why I agree and propose to replace this with a redirect and add a hatnote to the other. This is an example of WP:BLAR - blank and redirect, but others have opposed my change. JuniperChill (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the established convention has been that where there is one class of rolling stock, that Class xxx be set as a disambiguation page. While people will naturally think that the class in the their home country is the primary topic, Wikipedia has a global readership who may have differing opinions based on their geographic locations. Weshmakui (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this normally applies, but have you heard of 'primary topic' and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are3 only two articles where 'class 755' could be referred to and that I have provided the linked pageviews above. British Rail Class 755 has over 10x the number of views that the Prussian G 8 has. Many titles and abbreviations do not have a primary topic (where the disambiguation page has '(disambiguation)' in it) but this seems like an exception. And yes while Wikipedia does have people around the globe, articles can often have most of its views from one country/region. This is the case here since almost everyone that knows this type of train is from the UK. JuniperChill (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add: Actually WikiNav is also useful because it shows that all of the pageviews goes to BR Class 755 JuniperChill (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the input side regardless of primary topic, WP:2DAB applies. On the output side, making primary topic available again. gidonb (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a redirect to British Rail Class 755 per WP:BLAR, not to delete the page. JuniperChill (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you also want this blanked, simplest is just to delete per above rationale. Next you can create a redirect as you wish. The disambiguation page is clearly unjustified, the rest is just editing. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Rail Class 755 with a hatnote to Prussian G 8. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override overall guidance for disambiguation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to British Rail Class 755, the very clear primary topic, with a hatnote to the WP:ONEOTHER meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Rail Class 755: and add a hatnote to the other train as the British trainset is the clear primary topic and a disambiguation page is unnecessary as per WP:ONEOTHER. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Rail Class 755 as a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ONEOTHER. S5A-0043^Talk 09:14, 26 June 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.

Upwave

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:

This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avimator

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Using Google Scholar, I can find plenty of mentions, but not anything substantial. toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of these old non-notable software articles. I usually find WP:PROD a good tool for dealing with them. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pears Foundation

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

I searched for some independent, reliable secondary sources to established this organisation's notability but it mostly just returned listings and a few press releases so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this subject is not notable. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see only WP:ROTM coverage in the style of "rich dude gives some money to [thing]". This lacks depth and is just a press release. Can't find any secondary criticism or discussion. BrigadierG (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage. WP:BEFORE returned only primary sources. Among the sources cited in the article only two seem reliable and one of those two is about the Pears property company not Pear Foundation. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:25, 3 July 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.

Spaceballs (demogroup)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's–Temple rivalry

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

This article is largely unsourced original research. I found some articles about rivalries within the Philadelphia Big 5, but nothing about these two schools specifically. Any content about this rivalry specifically should probably be added to Philadelphia Big 5 instead. This was dePRODed without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage exists at [[7]] and [[8]]. At the very least, this should probably be merged with Philadelphia Big 5 rather than outright deleted. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is about the coaches of the two teams. [2] is more about the Philadelphia Big 5. I think that it's a stretch to say that there's coverage from either of these two sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I am comfortable with merging with Philadelphia Big 5. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on a merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Philadelphia Big 5: Subject does not nearly meet the GNG on its own but the coverage above can be included as part of the article on the Big 5. Let'srun (talk) 23:59, 4 July 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 NCAA Division III independent schools. After discounting the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. However, the proposed selective merge target seems like a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 10:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records

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

Topic is not notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a list of records for loosely-related college football team seasons. These teams are "independent" and do not belong to conferences, only joined together because they are in a division of college football together. The text in many of these templates also show up as wikitext because of improper code writing. This list was also created as a way to try avoiding deletion of the individual templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 13#Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here connecting these records together; fails WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Member of an already established set of pages. (List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1973–present), List of NCAA Division II independents football records) Unless you plan on also nominating both of those for deletion to remain consistent. But I reckon that is not the plan since this is the only one hindering the deletion of the Division III independent templates. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Let'srun (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 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) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a stats sheet. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying - if this isn't a notable list/container article, none of the standings template pages are notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate other articles similar to this because I feel this one in particular is the least notable, and I don't agree that everything else would have to be deleted as a result of this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gesser

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

WP:ONEOTHER. My consideration is to redirect to the football coach and have a hatnote for the record producer, but I guess a straight up deletion also works. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if anything, this is a case of WP:TWOOTHER. We can choose what to do, in this case I would opt for the status quo. Broc (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters WP:ONEOTHER is about disambiguation pages. This is not a disambiguation page. Jason Gesser is also not particularly notable and is certainly not ubiquitously referred to only as "Gesser". The bar for a primary surname redirect is way higher than this one. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly with the addition of another person but agree that this isn't suited for a surname redirect to a single person. Skynxnex (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now has 3 names, standard surname page. PamD 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination someone else has been added, no longer eligible for AfD. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of time zones by country. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order in which countries enter the new year

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

No citations, completely orphaned, and this topic is already covered by List of time zones by country. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of time zones by country. The rationale makes sense, but redirects are cheap and this meets the criteria for WP: ATD-R. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of time zones by country per above. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of time zones by country per above. Rocfan275 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think deletion in some sense seems inevitable here, but I have to ask, what possible purpose does a redirect serve here? It's not a plausible search term; it's not a plausible phrase to link from. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are WP: CHEAP, so why not? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One redirect is cheap; millions are WP:COSTLY, so why? Even still, that's no argument against deletion. There's no page history worth keeping here, and this would be a useless redirect, so why create it? Nothing would stop anyone from creating this name as a redirect after deletion, except of course for the fact that it's such an awkward, implausible phrase. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree that making one redirect is cheap, which is what we're actually doing here. I don't see what's left to discuss. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We most definitely do not agree. You've provided no rationale why this should be converted to a redirect instead of a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:ATD-R. I would advocate for deletion of this redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:RPURPOSE says that redirects to [s]ubtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article are legitimate redirect. Consider also WP:R#KEEP #2 and 5. The very existence of this AfD proves that the redirect would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely. Nickps (talk) 18:15, 29 June 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.

1234 (number)

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

Unsourced article about a rather unremarkable number. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; other than "the digits are in order" there is nothing interesting about the number. Recently created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's trivial. Athel cb (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added some sourced properties, not all of which are "the digits are in order". The article is now significantly expanded from its nominated sub-stub version, which didn't even say that much. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I need more numbers in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is helpful also, I made this page because I need more numbers in Wikipedia, so don’t delete it. It is a good page. Highway Helper (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Enthusiastic editors are a great thing to have. However, before you create any more pages, you might want to carefully read WP:GNG, which talks about when a topic is sufficiently important to have its own page. PianoDan (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adding more sourced properties as well. Radlrb (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evaluating this number by the relevant guideline, the big question is Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer? I think we can lump together all of its appearances in various lists made by concatenating numerals ("triangle of the gods", the $a(n)=10a(n-1)+n$ sequence, and the Yates-order thing). Then we've got the counting of independent vertex sets, which is in the OEIS as both "nice" and "hard". We could also include this along with that and maybe mention this as well. The "finite Sturmian words" sequence is also "nice", though what it's actually counting seems harder to explain... The rest of what's currently in the page can be summarized, I think, by saying, "1234 is also the answer to various partitioning problems, such as" and giving a few examples. Counting rooted trees of a fixed height and digits in Fermat numbers could also be included. Overall, I think this one is salvageable, somewhat to my surprise. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partitions are tricky, mainly because all small enough numbers will be some partition values of different integers in many ways, so at least two coinciding values in different enough ways (or similar too), makes pairs of integer partitions or more worthwhile to mention (here we have two for 44 and two for 24, for example). Else partition values obtained that are factors of each other is another order of interest, especially if the partitions are defined in similar ways... and so forth. Actual uses of select partitions become most notable, of course. We can remove some from here (like those in the note). Radlrb (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I think you are misinterpreting the guideline (it isn't the clearest in this regard). For a number to be considered notable, it needs to meet all three bullet points, not just one of them. Above, there are similar lists for "kinds" and "sequences" of numbers, and there it is explicitly noted that we need an "affirmative" answer to the questions, not just to one of them. You can also see in the "Disposition of examples" for the numbers, that the example meets all three questions and thus is notable. For 1234, so far only meeting question 1 has been demonstrated, positive answers to question 2 and 3 are missing, and this means that it doesn't meet the guideline and isn't notable. Fram (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said "the big question". Question 2 is the most subjective, and in this case is arguably met because the number in question is, well, "one two three four". It's the ATM PIN for people who don't care about their ATM PIN, and all that. The answer to question 3 is yes; 1234 appears on Friedman's webpage (I haven't checked the other two, but it doesn't have to appear in all of them). XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning also, this article as it currently stands also satisfies guidelines found at WikiProject Numbers (aside from maybe, finding a good cultural point referenced, or otherwise). Radlrb (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-notable by any reasonable interpretation of the idea. Any number of this magnitude is likely to crop up in dozens, if not hundreds, or thousands, of OEIS entries. A laundry list of such appearances does not an encyclopedic subject make. I'd go so far as to say that numbers above 100 (and I'm being really generous by cutting off at 100) are not notable unless they have some overriding cultural significance or for some other special reason. "1234" does not fit into this, and indeed, even after attempts to flesh out the article, all we have is a list of numerical trivia. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero sense, and that will never happen anyways. It's not just about OEIS, and guidelines are clear in what is required to be included here as an article. For example, take 1024, or a small number such as 144, and you'll get very important properties arising. Radlrb (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with me, just as I disagree with you, but saying my reasoning makes "zero sense" makes zero sense. And I even said I'm open to exceptional cases, but this isn't one of them. And the guidelines on standalone notability for integers are, frankly, bullshit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome you to make suggestions for better notability guidelines at the proper project pages, then. Note, that these have been "fleshed out" quite a bit. Radlrb (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a published source for the frequent pin code usage. I'm not a big fan of crufty number articles, but I think the grid independent set property, the cultural usage as a pin code, and the appearance of this number in recreational mathematics works such as Pickover's are enough for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PIN referenced is not really about the integer 1234, as its a string of digits for a code, and people usually would not think of "one thousand, two hundred and thirty-four" when putting this pin down, more so "one two three four". But, it can go either way, so I think it's somewhat admissible (if that's all that we can find culturaly, or in society, so to speak, for this article so far). Radlrb (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is now greatly expanded and much better sourced than it was when nominated. A (re-)assessment of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable and insufficient coverage. S-Aura (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comment. The relisting comment asked about source analysis. TL;DR -- there aren't any of any worth. The OEIS is fine for verifying basic facts (although it does have mistakes), but it's useless for trying to establish "notability" of a number, which is kind of a silly idea anyway. The Parker book is even more useless; it's a short offhand comment in which 1234 crops up, and it certainly doesn't go into any depth about the number; worse yet, it's just that it happens to be the first in a sequence which doesn't satisfy a particular property. Moreover, it's a base-10-specific property, which are always far less important anyway. And finally, as even Radlrb astutely pointed out, the PIN thing isn't about the number 1234, but merely the string of base-10 digits. The basic premise of GNG is "are there sources which discuss the topic in depth?", to which the answer is a pretty clear "no". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "the number 1234" and "the string of base-10 digits" is too fine a hair for me to split here. A property of a string of base-10 digits is a property of a base-10 representation of a number, and thus a property of that number. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
💯 Radlrb (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And our number articles are full of facts that are more about numerals as strings than arithmetic statements about integers. For example, 66 (number) includes Messier 66 and Route 66, cases in which the numbers are semi-arbitrary identifiers; there's no meaning in adding or multiplying highway numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that numbers-as-semi-arbitrary-identifiers belong on disambiguation pages, not on pages about numbers-as-numbers. But mathematical or cultural properties of strings of base-10 digits can stay on the number pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. There are three nice sequences listed, and a cultural point that passes - limit I believe is at a four-digit code where people could use spelled out numbers rather than digit by digit (one, twelve, one hundred and twenty three, one thousand two hundred and thirty four; maybe not twelve-thousand three hundred and forty five, as the series becomes longer and wordier). These points collectively suffice for notability guidelines for number articles; in-depth coverage is not a requirement (though depth is given for various points). Radlrb (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is king. If there aren't sources discussing a topic in depth, it's not notable. Notability isn't some checklist where something gets to tick off some boxes and it automatically gets an article. It's always case-by-case, and the tortured reasoning being employed here to try to save this one is ludicrous. You yourself even admitted that a PIN being "1234" is about the digits, and not the number represented by that string of digits. And even still, the obvious followup question is "so !@#$ing what?" Because "1234" is a common PIN it gets a Wikipedia article? Really? Has the world gone insane? I'm really in disbelief over the lunacy here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends on how to dictate in-depth coverage (not source-wise I mean, OEIS and the books sourced are clearly notable, as with their respective authors). Expansion to the mention in binary is warranted, and I haven't gotten to that yet. While most number articles do need some work in this regard, a simple use or noteworthy point (i.e., 1234 is the first to not be divisible by the last digit, in its series) can have deeper meaning and substantiate the original point (in this example, four adjoining properties are coupled). The vertex sets point is also substantiated by a note. The partitions examples are important in giving mathematical value to the number 24, for example, or 44; the former is particularly a notable number, so value is given there and therefore is a worthwhile mention. The cultural example is perfectly fine, and I grew into appreciating it more after contemplating it further. Radlrb (talk) 19:38, 3 July 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.

List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars

The result was ‎ Withdrawn , rename / refocus instead. Fram (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA). An article on Mobile radar observation of tornadoes seems to be a better idea, perhaps this can be moved and the list trimmed to the most notable instances only? But specifically as a list grouping this seems like a never-ending list of a non-defining characteristic of the tornadoes, which get observed by many methods. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Technology. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Support renaming — As pointed out by Fram, the list should only have the most notable instances. That is actually sourced by a published paper by NOAA/OU ([9]), which is cited in the article. The authors specifically mention dozens of tornadoes have been observed by mobile radars. That said, only a handful (actually, roughly this current list) have been directly mentioned or directly published about. In that paper, several of the tornadoes on this list were directly called out, including with some of the max readings. In fact, that published study alluded to another study of 82 separate tornadoes measured by mobile radars (page 5), but yet, only 12 were directly named in the study. Those named ones are the most notable ones. As such, several of the tornadoes listed here have the mobile radar information mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia (see 2013 El Reno tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado, Tornadoes of 2009#June 5, 2024 Greenfield Tornado, Tornado records, ect…)

Secondly, the nominator claimed “the most basic sources” and called out Twitter (only used for tornadoes that occurred in the last month—directly published by the Doppler on Wheels account or a academically published meteorologists in the field of radars…i.e. meets WP:SPS very clearly (“Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”)) and NOAA. However, the nominator stated inaccurately that NOAA was a “primary source” that is not the case. NOAA does not own the Doppler on Wheels (University of Illinois does) or RaXPol (University of Oklahoma does) and the NOAA publications listed here (example for this is this publication in 2016) are not primary sources for it. Per the FAQ for that NOAA website, “The NWS has 60 days to submit their data files to the NWS Headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. The NWS Headquarters (NWSHQ) then collects all of the data files from the 123 NWS Forecast Offices. The NCEI receives a copy of this database approximately 75 days after the end of the month. A publication and archive are produced and the Storm Events Database are updated within 75-90 days after the end of a data month.” Clearly not a primary source for the Doppler on Wheels data, which is not owned or managed whatsoever by NOAA.

To list a few secondary reliable source news articles (let’s ignore the tons of peer-reviewed academic papers already cited in the article currently), we have [10][11][12][13][14][15] as well these published in 2024: [16][17][18](TWP)[19]. Again, those are just a handful of news articles related to the mobile radars and how they improve science. I’m not going to go through and list every reference in the article, since a ton are secondary, peer-reviewed academic papers.

(Too Long;Didn’t Read Summary) Basically, Keep the article, bust just rename it. Invalid AFD in my opinion, as even the nominator gave an alternative to deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: With what you stated, I do agree with you. If you would wish, you could withdraw the AFD and move the article. I could reformat it and talk page discussions regarding what is/is not notable could occur. Since you gave an out for deletion, and I agree with the alternative, withdrawing the AFD and following that process may be best, rather than try to wait over a week to do the reformatting and such. So, would you be up to withdrawing the AFD and then renaming the article so I can reformat it appropriately? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the best solution! Fram (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as it is not notable. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. It's difficult to search on the galaxy identifier because it turns up a lot of false positives (such as IC 310), but a check in SIMBAD didn't turn up any article titles that referenced "IC 3". Nor does it show up in astronomy books. A few astronomy web sites mention it briefly, but without any substantial discussion. Praemonitus (talk) 05:28, 2 July 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.

Mahatma Gandhi International School, Ahmedabad

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 2 July 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 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Tiger Development

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

Non-notable videogame development company, seemingly, from the limited information I have found, a subcontractor the actual studio hires for certain tasks such as localization. The entire article's sources list consists of links to the company's website and IMDb, and I've been unable to find adequate sourcing to write a better article, so don't think it can be done (feel free to prove me wrong though, I may have missed something!). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Toys, and Companies. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company actually has a history of developing games back in the day, including Time Crisis Alpha for the PlayStation and an old King of the Hill game – but none of this adds up to any kind of notable press coverage. A passing mention at IGN ([20]) and small one in Kotaku ([21]) were the only truly reliable ones that popped up, and I don't think it passes WP:CORP. Nomader (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not even fit WP:ORGSIG, with little to no coverage in independent sources as well as the lack of independent sources available. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Material ejected from nuclei. ✗plicit 14:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC 224

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. I suggest to turn it to a redirect Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Material ejected from nuclei. C messier (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: it is discussed on a couple of web sites, but nothing that I'd consider sufficiently reliable. Praemonitus (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: That section heading feels a bit like undue promotion of Arp's nonsense views, even though it was the original catalog section name. I suppose a redirect is reasonable here, since it's in Arp's catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Suman

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

Fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The player doesn't seem very famous outside of Australia, but he seems to have WP:SIGCOV in the country's sports media like the offline sources of The Press & Journal and Evening Express. Svartner (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources already present which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate notability.Blethering Scot 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All newly added sources either fail YOUNGATH or are routine transfer stories. Dougal18 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be an easy keep. The player doesn't need to be world famous to be notable. Anwegmann (talk) 01:03, 30 June 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.

Brian Campbell (game designer)

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

I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.

However, for Ratkin (1999), Umbra (2001) and Tribebook: Bone Gnawers (2001) Campbell is listed as sole author - that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC, no secondary coverage. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR either, only major work seems to be Victorian Age: Vampire. --Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Newimpartial, but failing that we could always merge or redirect to List of role-playing game designers. BOZ (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief executive officers

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

Ephemeral list with unclear criteria for inclusion. Category:Chief executives by nationality includes more then 12,000 notable subjects, which could potentially all end up in this list. Broc (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and Lists. Broc (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NOTDIRECTORY also delete subcategories on a separate AFD deletion. Why do we need this list, or any of the other similar lists? There's a whole bunch of this stuff we could delete. See Category:Lists of businesspeople - why do we need to know how many Jewish persons are in a given area of corporations? And why do we need to know their specific names and birth-death dates? It just goes on and on, with probably nobody updating these lists. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 I've noticed those other lists such as List of Jewish American businesspeople in finance which do not seem to fulfill WP:NLIST. However, they can't be grouped with this nomination, as my concerns for this list are more about WP:SALAT (selection criterion is too broad) and WP:LISTOUTCOMES (ephemeral listings are usually deleted). Broc (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just mentioning in case anyone else wants to create an AFD for any of those . — Maile (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list appears to only have current CEOs of notable companies, even though it's not clearly stated; skimming the categories, I see a lot of former CEOs and executives of non-notable companies or other types of entities. This list could probably be reorganized to be sorted by country or further limited to, say, Fortune 500 or equivalent companies, as well as removing the few CEOs listed who don't have their own articles either, but it serves a valid navigational purpose. These categories have a lot of people who aren't corporate executives or are notable for other things, so it's not very useful for navigation. I'd further note that the item on the Common Outcomes page was added in 2011 as "Ephemeral listings of current personnel", which is often seen as non-notable people; this is by no means a precedent that applies here and does not ban the concept of things being up to date. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list gets too long, it can split out by nationality. This is far more useful than a category that only list their names, this showing what company they are in, what years they held this title, and how they got their position. Perfect valid navigational list. Dream Focus 16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to understand the selection criteria for what constitutes a "notable company" or how a "position corresponding" to CEO is defined. As such, this is a WP:NLIST violation. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the CEO and the company both have their own Wikipedia articles, then they are notable. If its notable enough for a category, you can make a far more useful navigational list out of it. Dream Focus 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is a random list with no clear boundaries. What defines a notable company? There must be thousands of CEOs, if not more, this article lists a few hundred. Would be more useful if there were defined boundaries, e.g. of a FTSE 100 or Nasdaq 100. Heronrhyne (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Heronrhyne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dream Focus 04:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list doesn't seem to be simply a directory, as it provides info about each entry. As for the consern of the list becoming to large, it could always be split into different articles, say by country, if we come upon that bridge. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 00:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list, passes WP:NLIST. Of course it is incomplete and not always up to date, as inevitably with any such list. Edwardx (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:23, 2 July 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 23:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Socialist Caucus

AfDs for this article:

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

This was already deleted as it disambiguated between two entities without their own articles and that weren't explicitly referenced in the linked articles. This disambiguation was apparently recreated only a few months after it was deleted, but this time with an extra "caucus" that is also not mentioned in the linked article. None of the original deletion rationale appears to have been addressed in its recreation, so I'm nominating it for deletion a second time. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the first Afd that warrants a different consensus. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 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 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Nothing here warranting reversing the prior AfD outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skibidi Toilet episodes

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

The article seems to have had numerous issues when created and nonsense text, little sources have been found and I question whether the article's topic is even notable. TwinBoo (talk) 12:08, 25 June 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 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of non-notable youtube videos (while Skibidi Toilet is of itself notable, none of the videos have individually received any significant coverage yet with the possible exception of the first one). In addition, while the descriptions are actually mostly accurate by my recollection, they should not really be here. If one wanted to do a "plot summary", they should put it into the main article Skibidi Toilet. Possibly consider Redirect as an option.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bab shakkk do do do do do do do do Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 23:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how your !vote is just nonsense when your signature is, well... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to stop. Constructive comments only. (That includes writing a real rationale with your !vote.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per WP:NLIST, the individual elements in a list don't need to show notability, if the overall topic is notable. Yes the article needs works, yes more content can be split out the other article - but if the series itself is notable, there's no reason why a list can't exist for reasons of notability. there's sources in the main article that can be used to verify this (and I'll move some across later), but "not notable" doesn't apply to lists like this. Mdann52 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does it meet NLIST though? You comment doesn't explain, and notability isn't inherited. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: because per NLIST, a list is presumed notable if the grouping of items is notable. It's undeniable here that the episodes, as taken as a group, meet the relevant notability guidelines, so the list does not need to show the items are independently notable. The series is notable, the episodes don't have to show notability for the list to exist. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't proven the grouping of episodes is notable though. That isn't automatic just because the subject is notable. I'll drop it, as it appears you've already dropped it below, but for future reference, it takes more than the subject being notable to rightfully invoke NLIST... Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete as per Belbury. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, Lists, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a ridiculous "article" that only belongs on Wikidata. Nothing of value will be lost in deletion. Assimilate them as a summary like "episodes are titled by their number" and confine this otherworldly prattle to its rightful place. Everybody, it's time to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are responsible for our future generations and the lifeblood of this country.^[Joke] Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has changed a bit—its state before nomination included one-sentence descriptions and "*top rated*" on certain episodes as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Without any actual descriptions, this is just an indiscriminate list of dates and episodes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources to do not support documenting this topic in this level of detail. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was created by LTA hoaxer User:Oatsandcream evading a block, a few days ago, I don't know how much it's been reworked since. --Belbury (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case... Delete even though I'm the only other major contributor. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the baseless assertion above, this article does not in fact meet NLIST...or anything else notability-wise. Even if it did, its virtually devoid of encyclopedic content. Best case scenario would be a WP:TNT delete. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honestly, these episodes aren't even notable enough to be listed in the Skibidi Toilet article. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since there is not that much substance to Skibidi Toilet (this article feels unfinished too) to warrant a list of its episodes. They are quite short, so explaining their whole plots would probably attract sentences as long as typical Wikipedia TV show episode summaries. If needed, its whole plot could instead be explained in prose as a giant section, granted that said section is supported by reliable secondary sources. But if you need a deep look at Skibidi Toilet, there is a wiki about it, so no worries. Also here is a nitpick: the Skibidi Toilet article is attracting a bunch of vandalism, and I have seen various episodes list articles be protected against vandalism, an article being a list of Skibidi Toilet episodes could be a giant vandalism magnet, especially since that article is not a good one anyways. I do not think that articles should be deleted simply because they attract vandalism, but this one is a laughing stock. CarlFilip19 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 13:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable The Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^(hedgehogs) 15:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delte: the episodes are literally just "skibidi toilet 12" "skibidi toilet 50." What is the point of just having skibidi toilet then many numbers listed out. Most of the episodes aren't even a minute long. It feels very unnecessary, and very unnotable. TomMasterReal^TALK 02:25, 2 July 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.

Ali Maisam Nazary

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 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 redirect‎ to PK-42 Abbottabad-I as a valid ATD against which a case has not been made (vs. an opinion cast) Star Mississippi 02:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nawaz Khan Jadoon

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

Fails NPOL as well GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PK-42 Abbottabad-I as a valid search term (WP:ATD), and add details there. WP:NPOL is just a rule of thumb to quickly judge if the topic would meet WP:GNG (read the introductory sentence of WP:NBIO: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. and now read the parent guideline WP:SNG: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.). Once notified for AfD, only WP:GNG matters, so please cite WP:GNG while nominating articles. If all we have are statistics of how many votes these crook politicians received then stand-alone articles are not needed. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, IP - So are you suggesting that we shoud redirect BLP of every single candidate to their constituency's article? With about 20,000 candidates in the 2024 election alone, I'm sure this is not a good precedent we are setting here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You Are right brother Saqib, we should not go for every candidate, actually this person is General Secretary of one of leading Nationalist Pakhtun Party name Qaumi Watan Party and you know General Secretary is second most important person in an organization after Chairman. That is my point, we should made an article for his details,
  
  Thank you for you support and understanding Tasawar Waris (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 July 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.

Angara Airlines Flight 200

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of sources constitute those of primary sources with a lack of reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth coverage with a failure of continued coverage with lasting effects having not been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.

"of this fatality-causing incident."

Per the event criteria, criterion #4, _{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.}

There doesn't seem to be much that would give this accident, whilst tragic, additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as [22]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.

You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources covering the flight attendant's honouring are primary sources since they reported on the news when it came out without actually doing much analysis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles on the flight attendant are clearly secondary, not "breaking news." See [23], that is clearly not a primary source. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best. You could try searching youself? It shouldn't be hard to find. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did and it turned up nothing, so unless you're referring to the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see what longstanding consensus you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either. WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the airline, aircraft and airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.

Some articles, such as Lao Aviation FLight 703, Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, Miami Air Flight 293, Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 were nominated shortly after the creation of their article. Some articles such as Ural Airlines Flight 178, Air Astana Flight 1388 and VASP Flight 210, in hindsight, were very serious accidents due to their unique circumstances.

Notability isn't immediately inherited just because the event involved a commercial airliner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying notability is inherited because of that, but look at the fresh deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 - it lists all the reasons when we generally characterise coverage of an aviation incident as lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said, WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not being used incorrectly. It's been mentioned at several AfDs recently and is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash and you yourself used it in March here to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 35. You can't have it both ways... SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in all those that you linked except for UA35, it was stated the use of WP:AIRCRASH was flawed and should not be used. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's an "and/or" in that sentence. So one or more of the items in that list. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Airplane crashes do not have inherent notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the decision is not to keep, it should be redirected to Angara Airlines#Accidents rather than being deleted, noting that this article is linked not just from the couple of navbox templates, but also from a few pages. It's reasonable for at least some of those appearances to remain, so interlinking is a net benefit. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Typo. Fixed in the source. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, which sources are you referring to? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning this debate. It is annoying when nominators try arguing with each single editor who "dares" to disagree with their opinion. Moderators had their say in the intro. This intro wasn't unreasonably written, yet that doesn't guarantee that each editor will agree with you. We all do our research and bring our knowledge of policies, guidelines, subject matter, and other experience to a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found some evidence of WP:LASTING from mention 4 years later in The Sunday Times -https://archive.is/OZXqk. I believe this crash may be plausible (barely) notable as part of a wider phenomenon cited by the times of Antonov An-24 airplanes being disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about lasting effects or lasting coverage? From what I can tell, this is more of a brief mention, part of a wider range of An-24 accidents, since this was the first An-24 accident since Angara Airlines Flight 200. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to respond to everyone who disagrees with your nomination? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 3 July 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 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of hispanophones

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

WP:SALAT, some notable Spanish-speaking people does not seem like a well-defined criterion. Extremely incomplete list. There are ~530 million Spanish speakers in the world, this list could potentially contain millions of entries. Broc (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, and Lists. Broc (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously far too broad and vague, not a useful page to be told that someone from Spain speaks Spanish. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the objections already raised (with which I agree) the article doesn't define Spanish-speaking people: does it just mean people with Spanish as their mother-tongue? Or people whose home language is Spanish? Something else? I speak Spanish (badly): does that make me a hispanophone? Apart from anything else, it doesn't seem to list notable Spanish-speaking scientists, but there are plenty of those (especially in Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay). Athel cb (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 27 June 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.

M-T pronouns

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.

As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.

Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.

I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.

An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)

What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.

@Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.

Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:

"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[24] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[25] by Juha Janhunen

Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?

I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "phonetic patterns in pronouns" or something like that. The best of multiple bad options. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be recognizable. I think "M–T and N–M pronoun patterns" as suggested above would be best. Those are the two patterns that are notable globally. We can still have an 'other patterns' section. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 5 July 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. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journalist, articles depend on totally one reference, fails WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, News media, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article relies almost entirely on one source, and therefore fails General notability guideline. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 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 11:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coupled with the source in the article, I found some reliable ones online (here (this one is the most reliable), here, and here) which is therefore enough to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG. All three sources mentioned by Cocobb8 are just about Gupta's appointment as "the chairperson of the Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation" only. The Hindu, though notable media, wrote only "A senior journalist, Mr. Gupta was associated with the first NDA government, having worked in the PMO of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.", as addition to the announcement which is not enough for WP:NBIO. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990, The Hindu wrote at least 2 paragraphs. How is that not WP:SIGCOV? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 please quote what were in those two paragraphs. I don't see any anything beyond mention. If you see, please enligten us. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990 Well I won't quote that much because that would constitute a copyright violation. But, here's the very first sentence of the article. The Union Culture Ministry has appointed journalist Kanchan Gupta the chairperson of the Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation till May 2020, weeks after Union Culture and Tourism Minister of State (independent charge) Prahlad Singh Patel was nominated to the post.
At this point, I'll leave it to other editors to share their thoughts with this article. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. M S Hassan (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With significant and valid input arguing both POVs, it is clear that a consensus to delete is not going to emerge here and it appears some of the issues have already been resolved via editing. I encourage that to continue to see if it can resolve all concerns before this is re-nominated. Star Mississippi 02:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Janisch

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

Wikipedia:Autobiography translated from dewiki. Perhaps the subject is notable, but this is not the way to an article compliant with WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @Joe Roe: for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a discussion because of a WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the article talk page, as well as my user page. I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through WP:AfC. My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below.

I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the article talk page. I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest WP:ATD, specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a WP:NPOV.

I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met.

Speedy deletion criteria are not met.
Copyright violations are not present.
Vandalism is not present.
The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE), in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a Google Search.
Content forks do not apply.
Article is well-referenced and satisfies WP:Reliability.
See point 4.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.

Best, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just my thoughts- the subject is clearly notable, with significant coverage in many locations, as per https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/srf-dok-maximilians-welt-aus-dem-leben-eines-hochbegabten https://magazin.nzz.ch/empfehlungen/maximilian-janisch-ist-der-juengste-doktorand-der-schweiz-ld.1733390 etc. etc. especially in Swiss media- all reliable sources, all clearly about him specifically. Having read the article and considering the conflict of interest, I definitely think the article could be improved and could be considered a little too in-depth and perhaps overly supportive of the subject, but I definitely feel like the article should not be deleted. I would perhaps suggest that Mr. Janisch consider editing articles in other sections of Wikipedia rather than his own article? Doing this only makes these deletion arguments even more painful and difficult to reconcile.Spiralwidget (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it follows the general notability guideline. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points:

Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person.

Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox.

Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable.

Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of "mathematician" with "child prodigy" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage

Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage

Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992)

Removal of his CV and website as sources

Removal of German citizenship; uncited

Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc.

Removal of personality traits section- not relevant.

Removal of weblinks.

Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is deleted I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend keeping the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spiralwidget: I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there.

First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:

Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here [26]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems very reasonable.
Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.

--Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a delete, and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here.

Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added.

Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist.

Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship.

I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to keep his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's best. Let's be clear though: this is not "your article." Please see WP:OWN. If the article is not deleted. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is only a graduate student and none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under WP:BIO, but since this is a WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that 'delete' is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This subject clearly and obviously does not pass WP:PROF. For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the Salem Prize, say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 15 are directly about the subject, in RS. I'm not sure what else is required, a rewrite perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I'm not contesting whether subject is notable either way (though David makes an interesting point above w.r.t. to WP:BLP1E). The argument for deletion is that this is an autobiography that would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by Michael Hengartner, president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. ("Das Wunderkind an der Uni." In: "SonntagsBlick", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills WP: GNG through WP:SIGCOV.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BBCLCD: May I ask what brought your attention to this discussion? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting the academic notability standard and otherwise being only known for one event. Essentially, the problem is that if you cut out the puffery, nothing remains. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree WP:PROF does not apply to me. In response to WP:BIO1E please consider that news coverage about me started when I finished the final high school exams at age 9, der Spiegel, 2013, Die Welt, 2013, Tagesanzeiger, 2013. Then continued as me being France's youngest student Le Monde, 2015, Europe1, 2015, Tagesanzeiger, 2015. Then continued when I started the Master's at age 15 Sonntagsblick, 2019, and when I started my PhD at age 18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2023. You may argue these stories are echoes of my high school exams, but considering WP:NOTBLP1E I find it hard to argue in favour of WP:BIO1E. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Zero pass of any categories of WP:Prof. No evidence of significant mathematical achievement yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources (Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by Yngvadottir's reasoning –Tobias (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you mean the article "A major contributor to this article appears...", that should be removed if/when appropriate (though not by User:Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time. Qflib (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a sequence of exceptional steps in the education of a prodigy a singular event as defined by WP:BIO1E ? BBCLCD (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it both ways. The way I look at this situation is that they aren't exceptional steps at all. They certainly would not be considered exceptional for anyone who was not this young. When a person does these things at the usual times, they would not be notable enough occurrences to merit any coverage. They are unexceptional steps that happened at an unusually young age - which of course is why the coverage was generated. The coverage itself is enough to merit a "weak keep" recommendation. The really singular event I see is completing the bachelor's degree in a single year - that must have been done by examination, I suppose. Of course, when the subject finishes their education they will not be the youngest person to receive a Ph.D. - that appears to be Karl Witte, who did it at age 13. Qflib (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of arabophones

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

WP:SALAT. The selection criterion for this list is internationally well-known personalities that speak Arabic which is absolutely arbitrary. Broc (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, and Lists. Broc (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like OR to me.— Iadmc ♫^talk 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is incredibly arbitrary- the list will never be exhaustive, the premise could be expanded to millions of other potential articles- i.e. people that speak Telugu, Tagalog- and is clearly original research.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arabs

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

WP:SALAT. There are currently ~400 million Arabs in the world, many of whom are notable and have a page on Wikipedia. This extremely incomplete list is way too broad, as it could potentially grow to millions of entries. Broc (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Ethnic groups, Lists, and Middle East. Broc (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously far too broad to have as a main list, could be turned into a "Lists of" if appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 15:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Reywas92 & Broc. Vlaemink (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad for Wikipedia. Orientls (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3441

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 00:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3403

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3389

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:13, 30 June 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.

Matěj Kvíčala

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

With only database source listed, the article of this luger certainly fails WP:GNG. All that came up in my Google search were an interview and trivial mentions; no indication of independent fact checking. Corresponding Czech Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English article otherwise. He was not even one of the top three luge winners at the 2010 Winter Olympics. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 2 July 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Agencies Association

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

Article fails WP:NORG, has never been anything other than a promo for the association. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and United Kingdom. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:ORG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere girls

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

article is written to legitimize this term, making it seem its use is widespread. there isn't even a chinese wikipedia article about this term. search up "沒女", most results (and most sources in the article) are about the tv show 没女大翻身. ltb d l (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Could the nominator clarify what is the rationale for deletion? The Wen Wei Po, U Beauty, and the South China Morning Post sources currently in the article may not be the best, but already demonstrate that the term exists and is notable enough to pass GNG. In addition to these sources, a simple search has provided me with numerous other sources, including some Chinese sources that document the origin of this term (see Economic Daily[27] and The Sun[28]), how it spread to and became popular in Hong Kong (see Hong Kong Economic Journal[29], Wen Wei Po[30], and She.com [zh][31]), as well as the subsequent social influence and some recurring usages after it gained popularity (see BBC [32], Ming Pao[33], HK01 [34], and Oriental Daily News[35]). I have not yet looked for academic sources, but I have already come across two academic journal articles that cover this term when I was searching for media sources ([36] and [37]), so I do not believe academic sources would be difficult to locate either. :The fact that it does not currently have a respective article on the zhwiki means nothing, and it is clearly an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Most of the sources mention the TV show Nowhere Girl is understandable, because that show popularised the term. There are many other instances of the term being used, such as the drama series The No No Girl (全職沒女), the film Love Detective [zh] (沒女神探), and a non-fiction book Mei nü Yao Fan Shen (沒女要翻身) written by Queenie Chan [zh][38], where the English translation of the term may differ. So the claim that the term is only used in one particular TV show is false as well. Could the nominator please elaborate a bit more on the specific rationale being used for deletion? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since about a week has passed but the nominator did not further elaborate on the deletion rationale, the current nomination statement is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST instead of notability guidelines, and I think it should be considered Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent research by Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs), who has definitively shown that the topic passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear pass on WP:LASTING which is usually the death of flash-in-the-pan neologisms - the originating influence is from 2001, and I am satisfied that the articles posted by Prince of Erebor are sufficiently far apart that this is a notable concept. BrigadierG (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zitouni

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

The article does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 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 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly found sources Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional sources at 1 and 2 as well as numerous Google book references such as 3 (pp.21-22). Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This smells of retaliation since the nom had the article about them deleted via AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources already mentioned, which satisfy general notability, Zitouni's work has also been the subject of peer-reviewed academic research. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the book and the paper listed above show that NAUTHOR 1, 3, and 4c have been met, in addition to the GNG. Any one of these would be enough to keep. The full text of the paper Cortador cited can be found here. Toadspike [Talk] 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 In light of the sources provided by Mccapra and Cortador, would you consider there to be sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR? Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just searched Google Scholar for "Ahmed Zitouni" and found this, which looks like an old review of one of his novels, and this book, which has a whole chapter on three authors, one of whom is Zitouni, starting on page 131. Toadspike [Talk] 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike, I would, yes! Thanks for the ping, not sure how I had missed those sources! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Internet challenges#Crime. Owen× ☎ 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallon smashing

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

While this probably seemed like an interesting topic at the time, it seems to explicitly fail WP:SUSTAINED (cf. also WP:10YT) as the coverage happened in 2013 with very little after that. Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact (WP:IMPACT) beyond that. An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal "challenges/pranks" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking [39] etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Crime, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already has a well-sourced entry at List of internet challenges, which goes into more than enough detail. All sources cited (and all sources I can find outside social media) are from 2013, making this a textbook failure of WP:10YT. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I take the opposite position as above. I think there's sufficient secondary coverage about this trend and the page is an appropriate fork from List of Internet challenges. The list merely defines "gallon smashing" without providing any additional context about the trend's history or impact. I'd prefer to see this entry expanded, not merged or deleted. I've added additional in-depth coverage by Bloomberg News, ABC News, CBS News, etc, and I've shared more refs on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the trend's history or impact". What impact? Geschichte (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charges filed, arrests, injuries, etc. Many trends don't result in these things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of internet challenges. I looked at the titles of the sources and thought that an Internet challenge still getting media coverage eleven years after the fact might indeed merit its own article, but then I checked the sources. The articles listed as being from 2024 are actually from the mid-teens, merely archived in 2024. Possible mislead but also possible NBD. Given that, the entry in "List of Internet challenges" seems sufficient to me. Would reconsider if there is in fact analysis of this challenge from 2020 or later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The issue with notability has not been adequately addressed, leaving in place a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina

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

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kosovo. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Rename List of film festivals in Kosovo and remove really non-notable events and add other festivals held in Kosovo. As for the fact that none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city...hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about. Not opposed to a plain keep (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/kosovo/articles/the-5-best-festivals-in-kosovo ; https://prishtinainsight.com/kosovo-film-festivals-to-go-ahead-despite-covid-19/ ; https://www.google.com/search?q=Film+festivals+in+Pristina+-wikipedia&sca_esv=ee8b71f1efd28755&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&ei=sRBoZt6IM-Dbi-gP5I-D-Aw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiepfbFltOGAxXg7QIHHeTHAM8Q8tMDegQIBBAE&biw=871&bih=496&dpr=2 etc.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about" is not a mic drop on anything. It was precisely my point that while obviously that is what the page is about, it is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about, so the very fact that the page is about that is precisely the problem with it. Collating a bunch of non-notable things together into one giant list is not a way around any problems establishing that the individual things would be notable enough to have their own articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, unless it's just a rewording of your rationale, in which case, yeah, sure, I heard you the first time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You "heard me the first time", and yet argued "keep because the page is about what the page is about" while completely ignoring the important point that pages aren't supposed to be about that? Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just re-read my comment carefully and don't misquote me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed some extremely promotional wording from the lead of the article, which does not bode well for COI/UPE. Add to that the contributions of its creator, which solely consist of creating this page. I think I lean delete, but I would also support moving this to List of film festivals in Kosovo. Toadspike [Talk] 08:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one entry is notable (i.e.: has its own article). If we remove all others, we are left with a list containing one item, which has no reason to exist. Hence my !vote for deletion. Broc (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3278

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3222

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3053

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. Also, having an observed supernova in the galaxy is trivial. C messier (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it shows up in a few studies, but there isn't a significant amount of coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3031

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coma Berenices as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is a good redirect target. C messier (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is non-notable. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 848

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it shows up in a few studies, but there isn't a significant amount of coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 838

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it shows up in a few studies, but there isn't a significant amount of coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I want this to be notable. However it does not seem to me to have a valid claim to notability, and the references, or lack of useful references, confirm this. Most are about the founder and his arrest, Others are snippets actually about C4U, but are not independent dent, not significant coverage 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 30 June 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.

Andrew Kneisly

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this American rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. My searches yielded only trivial mentions. A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads#United States. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 25 international appearances is quite notable plus I have been able to fine a few more sources [40][41][42][43]. Mn1548 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first three sources are from USARL, which is the competition the subject played in and thus not independent. The fourth source is a blog post with a passing mention of the subject, and thus is not reliable OR in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've seen similarly irrelevant sports players with articles about them. Maurnxiao (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article. JTtheOG (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From that website:

This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.

So unless I misinterpreted which is possible, is there any rush to get this article removed? Why not improve it? Maurnxiao (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. In this case, "speedily delete" refers to speedy deletion, a separate, much quicker procedure which does not need a discussion to delete a page. This rugby article is not eligible to be deleted through that medium. However, in my opinion, the subject has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that cover him directly and in detail and thus might fail our general notability guidelines, which is why I brought it to a discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:23, 2 July 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Toghtua Bukha

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

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, China, and Korea. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect per Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely ~~delete~~ redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa [1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article [2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article [3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CountHacker (talk · contribs), the link for the "Doosan Encyclopedia article" is malformed. Would you fix the link? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above evidence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: The sources found by CountHacker are mostly simple passing mentions and do not help in establishing WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote: Redirect to Wang_Ko#Family as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts.⁂CountHacker (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per WP:NBIO. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.
The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which reflects this already. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by CountHacker (talk · contribs). The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between Redirect and Keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, clearly passes GNG per CountHacker's sources, and the two encyclopedia's entries alone are more than enough to establish notability. The redirect comments should be disregarded, the first one (we can safely ~~delete~~ redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found) is pure nonsense: it would had made sense as long as sources had not been provided, but changing the delete vote to redirect after sourcing has been provided just leaves a contradictory and illogical rationale. The second one, claiming that individual entries on established encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Doosan Encyclopedia do not count towards notability, is just a WP:CIR issue and a WP:COMMONSENSE failure. --Cavarrone 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:42, 25 June 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.

Jite Agbro

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

Fails WP:NBIO; no WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Nigeria, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several of the references are SIGCOV from newspapers or magazines such as https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/11/20/figurative-collage-artist-jite-agbro-explores-who-belongs I think they are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it if my page was not deleted, please tell me how to move forward. I did not write this page, and I'm not a regular Wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to do anything about this. OnaJiteA (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:OnaJiteA just edited this article to make it read like an autobiography (hence the username). I reverted the edit and warned the user. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did realize I was not supposed to edit this page, I got an email saying I should enhance it. I just updated it again, so my apologies. I will stop

editing it now OnaJiteA (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not realize I'm not supposed to edit the page OnaJiteA (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OnaJiteA Hi, from who did you get the email saying you should enhance it? Random emails are highly suspicious and they might be trying to scam you. Read this Wikipedia scam warning and stay aware. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Nice stuff but WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/11/20/figurative-collage-artist-jite-agbro-explores-who-belongs	? Real Change News is a publication of Real Change Homeless Empowerment Project	?		? Unknown
https://artisttrust.org/artists/jite-agbro/	Artist Trust is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that supports working artists of all disciplines in Washington State		Grantee listing	✘ No
https://www.pccmarkets.com/sound-consumer/2020-09/new-jite-agbro-art-at-pcc/	Puget Consumers Co-op		Promotional article about an exhibition	✘ No
https://www.biartmuseum.org/exhibitions/jite-agbro-deserving/			? Listing of "Jite Agbro: Deserving" exhibition at BIMA (Bainbridge Island Museum of Art)	✘ No
https://www.4culture.org/gallery_work/jite-agbro/			? Listing of exhibition by 4Culture - the venue	✘ No
https://museo.cc/jite-agbro			artist statement on gallery site	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190925163156/https://www.thestranger.com/events/26432310/jite-agbro-skpt			local listing for an event	✘ No
https://www.juanalonsostudio.com/front-room-gallery/2017/1/31/guest-artist-jite-agbro			? Gallery site	✘ No
https://madartseattle.com/artists/jite-agbro/			? exhibition listing for MadArt - local art space	✘ No
https://www.bainbridgereview.com/life/bimas-six-new-seasons-shows-open-oct-12/			Multi event listing in Bainbridge Island Review	✘ No
https://www.4culture.org/public_art/your-proper-name/			exhibition listing by sponsor 4Culture	✘ No
https://artgallery.seattlecentral.edu/jite-agbro-armor			listing of exhibit by M. Rosetta Hunter Art Gallery	✘ No
https://www.seattleu.edu/su-today/announcements/blue-is-our-color-black-memory-identity-and-protest.html	?	?	? dead link	? Unknown
https://www.cornish.edu/news/2019-neddy-at-cornish-award-finalists-announced/			listing of Advancement, Neddy at Cornish, press release for 2019 Neddy at Cornish Award Finalists	✘ No
https://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/life/art-galleries-spring-forth-in-may/			multiple listings for art shows; Langley Art Walk is 5-7 p.m.	✘ No
https://artxchange.org/show/artxchange-gallery-bloodlines	?	?	listing for group show	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 2 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British scientists

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

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by city, by field by century,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the large number of edits I made to this list a year or so ago (many more than I guessed before checking), I agree with Broc that it is too long and unwieldy, as well as being seriously incomplete, to be useful. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there space for a "list of lists" of British scientists or similar? I think the concept is certainly sound, and it seems to be visited a fair deal.Spiralwidget (talk)
@Spiralwidget: I only find following sub-lists that could be included in a potential Lists of British scientists list-of-lists:
I'm not sure if it makes sense to group them together. Broc (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is far too incomplete, and I don't see how it could ever be kept current. Category:British scientists already exists, change to a redirect if possible. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American scientists

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

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split article into a list of lists, specific to scientific categories, per nom. —Mjks28 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28 this is an alphabetical list, how do you propose to split it? Broc (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to split the article into different subsections of science; i.e. one for psychologists, one for biologists, one for chemists, etc, and make this article a list of those lists, sort of like Lists of celebrities. Mjks28 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an effort completely unrelated to the existing page, as it would not be a simple WP:SPLIT but would require a complete re-evaluation of all entries in the list. Creating lists by topic could be done by simply using categories as a starting point, without needing the existing list. In my opinion the suggested "split" is not feasible. Broc (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I'd agree with deletion. Mjks28 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for much the same reasons as for deleting the List of British scientists just above. Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While creating new lists for American chemists, etc. may be an appropriate narrowing of topics, I see no need use the existing list in any way. Recreating it as a "Lists of" or other navigation page is welcome, but again it's not necessary to use any of the current page as a starting point. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 25 June 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.

Clayton Brown

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

Olympic rower who did not receive a medal and does not meet either Olympic notability for athletes who received medals or general notability based on significant coverage. The only reference is a database entry. Heymann criterion is to find significant coverage within seven days and expand this stub.

Draftify as nominator to allow six months to find significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, see sigcov here, here, here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are more than suitable for meeting the WP:GNG, as they each provide in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. There are recent articles about him being inducted in the HOF of his school, but that is mostly local coverage which is still not notable enough. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Though the older sources presented by Beaniefan are mostly about Canadian football and not rowing, it seems possible to craft a decent article from them and they are reliable. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 2 July 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Sharma

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

Failes WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Nothing special found any search engine! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly meets WP:CREATIVE with at least 8 credits as writer of notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) +significant awards that have him meet WP:ANYBIO + coverage that seems to have him meet GNG....[reply]
The current sourcing is not very good, though. All that's there are two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them, a social media announcement, and an IMDB profile. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you count the IMDB profile as one source, and one/multiple of the news articles as another? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This writer has received at least 2 nationally significant awards, which is sourced + meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple credits as writer (also sourced), so I am leaving it at that, as I consider the requirement for notability is met. two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them may be considered a description of significant coverage. Thanks. Just added 2 sources. Feel free to remove ImDb. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A triple fulfillment of notability guidelines (GNG, ANYBIO, and FILMMAKER). The subject person is the sole writer of six notable films, namely Tanu Weds Manu, Tanu Weds Manu Returns, Mr. Pellikoduku, Raanjhanaa, Zero, and Atrangi Re, fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER#3. He also won two National Film Awards, a Filmfare Award, and a Times of India Film Awards, fulfilling WP:ANYBIO#1. I have also found personal interviews with the subject person (see Times of India[44], The Telegraph[45], and India Today[46]), and media coverage on his personal life (see The Indian Express[47][48], Times of India[49], and NDTV [50]), fulfilling WP:GNG as well. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Prince of Erebor's sources. DareshMohan (talk) 00:21, 29 June 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.

Melody & Harmony

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just a few album reviews on music blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: One look at their Spotify page will show you they have 2 monthly listeners, clearly not WP:N. However, I don't want to be too rash when arguing for delete, and in this case, I think we could draftify the article so it can be improved, and inevitably apply for submission if/when the band becomes more notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftifying this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources. Don't see a reason to keep a draft when sources don't exist to write an article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Badly sourced article about a musical band that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I think draftifying only works when there is suspect of the article's near notability, but it isn't here. There is blatant failure of WP:NBAND, and can't be saved (when there is no notable musician in the band). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:10, 4 July 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. WP:RFD, not AFD, is for redirects. It would probably not be a good idea to nominate it there either, considering sources like Britannica: Turkish: “Kemal, Father of Turks” , i.e. that he is closely associated with the name Father of Turks. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Turks

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

"Father of Turks" is the rough meaning of the last name of Ataturk, but it does not justify creating a redirect from this term to the Ataturk article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Frameworks

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial or non-independent. Ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and India. – Teratix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short-lived startup with no notability. Broc (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article, and product, doesn't seem to be notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, overly promotional article, also the company appears to be defunct as well. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page for promotional purpose. Fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. No evidence and sources on this company makes it not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne McDonald (businessman)

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

No substantial independent coverage of this businessman/bodybuilder. Writing a long undergrad thesis is not a claim of importance. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bodybuilding and Australia. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete what a vanity article. Full of primary sources. Only 1 article links to this List of Australian businesspeople. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article's sources are mostly primary, and reads pretty biased. Also doesn't appear to be notable enough, anyway. The fact that the leading sentence includes an external link to their website screams advertisement. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is clearly a SNOW situation without any support at all for Deletion but the nominator. Any further decisions on splitting articles are editing choices that can occur outside of this AFD. I urge the nominator to listen to the opposing side, who are editors who focus on this subject area, and not reject their expertise as if it is a matter of cliquishness. They probably know the sources and literature better than the rest of us. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024

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

The claim that this was a single event is WP:SYNTH by Wikipedia editors. I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long "tornado outbreak sequence". Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You...nominate an article for deletion with 99 RS sources, including one of the strongest tornadoes in history, with full RS sources published within the last 48 hours? Really? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 exists separately from this article, which appears to be about individual tornadoes on these dates which no source appears to claim were a single "outbreak sequence". Walsh90210 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back tornado outbreaks. That definition is scientifically published and sourced. Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence. You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts. I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that. You have an issue with the article name and should have used WP:SPLIT and WP:RM...not AfD. You did not look at what to do before nominations for deletion, which would have mentioned that. Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage. So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose and recommend a fast-paced WP:SNOW-close for the above reasons by WeatherWriter. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to withdraw this; this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is suitable, and Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado probably would be as well; this is not. The concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" that conflates every weather event across 2000 miles for 8 days is not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote has been noted. You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a "tornado outbreak sequence" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved. I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name "tornado outbreak sequence" but rather "this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles? The idea of "tornado outbreaks" are supported by the sources ("A deadly tornado outbreak..."[51] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe. Why are you opposed to something like "May 19-27 severe storms" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024, Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024, ect..) or renaming it to "severe storms" when sources use it more. For example, "The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event" as named by the U.S. government. I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it. I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.

That is more what I am asking. Are you challenging the exact term "tornado outbreak sequence" or the content in general? That is actually unclear here. Specifying that would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily the term "tornado outbreak sequence" (which I hopefully have criticized enough already); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form. Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article List of United States tornadoes in May 2024. A blank-and-redirect to List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD. To note, no a "blanking" does not require an AfD. See Wikipedia:Merging. The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the deletion policy, specifically one or more of the "reasons for deletion". AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all. Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated. Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options. For a simple term, such as "tornado outbreak sequence", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons. The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines. In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.

Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for "tornado outbreak sequence" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion (WP:MERGE), a renaming discussion (WP:MOVE), a split discussion (WP:SPLIT) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next (Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024). Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying. Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern. Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue. But not a full-on deletion discussion. I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather obviously keep, as a noteworthy event or sequence of events. There might be grounds to consider splitting the article if the sources don't support treating the events together based either on causal relationship or proximity in time and location, or some combination of the two; but that would not be grounds for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per P Aculeius. If RS doesn't support tying all this RS material together, split or remove parts that don't fit with an RS-based theme. This should have been an editing exercise discussed on the article's talk page rather than coming here. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Canada, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is well research with almost a hundred sources, and details a pretty significant event, thus WP:N. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is far preferred to group a handful of back to back tornado outbreaks together in this manner for ease of access and because while there are multiple outbreaks covered sometimes drawing the line of when one outbreak ends and the next begins can be difficult, would constitute original research, and doing so lies outside the purposes of Wikipedia. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 13:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all. /srs

Thanks, NorthStarMI. (Talk in the galaxy) 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – That's literally how these types of articles are stringed together. They always have been that way and always will be (probably).

Poodle23 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto keep I'm not going to even grace this with an answer. ChessEric 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the continued contempt and refusal by "weather" editors to acknowledge that the concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" appears to be something they made up is the reason I continue to refuse to withdraw this AFD. If some uninvolved admin wants to close this in lieu of a discussion at some other forum (and starts that discussion procedurally), they can. But I stand by the claim that this (and, other similar) titles should be expunged from Wikipedia. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta break my promise of not replying again for this new comment. “Contempt and refusal” to acknowledge that “we” made it up? Yeah…this is very much a time you should back away from the discussion, since we didn’t make it up ([52]).

Now, if I may have a moment for a joke comment (seeing how it is obvious which way this WP:1AM AfD is going. If “we” made it up, then that would mean the Wikimedia Foundation controls the Storm Prediction Center and National Severe Storms Laboratory. But wait! Since those are U.S. government agencies…that would mean…Wikipedia controls the U.S. government! :O! Conspiracy Theory Time! (Now my fun time is over…I’m actually done here since this is a very much one-against-many AfD). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was one paper 21 years ago that nobody followed up on because the idea that tornadoes 1000 miles apart and 8 days apart are the same "event" is stupid. That's it for external usage of the term. The Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, Wikipedia-content books, and "fiction" wikis. The Google Scholar results have 23 total hits for "tornado outbreak sequence" (many of which refer to Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence, which is a "tornado outbreak" from a single storm). This. Is. Not. A. Single. Event. and you continue to insist (erroneously) that it is. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would be sympathetic to this line of argument if it were re-structured as a discussion (RFC, etc.) about splitting events like this instead of a Hail Mary AFD. Penitentes (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if this was made up by wikieditors then why does the nws uses the titles for other sequences? 67.58.252.227 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is clearly not the first step here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the reasons noted by WeatherWriter, Mjks28, DJ Cane, and other editors above. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This article is certainly is notable and certainly qualifies for its own article. The only thing that would even be remotely necessary if the nominator’s rationale is correct would be to split the article. But even then, deleting it is not the way to do it.
West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The event is notable, and looking at both Google Scholar and Google Books, the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" is used in scientific settings. Most recently, it appears in "An Introduction to Severe Storms and Hazardous Weather" by Dr. Jeffrey B. Halverson, a climate and storm scientist, which was published in 2024 by Routledge. He did write that they are "sometimes called simply an outbreak". The ISBN for anyone who wants to investigate is 978-1032384245. Since the issue does seem to be regarding the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence", there are more appropriate venues than AFD to handle this as other users have noted. CatharticHistorian (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Many have fleshed out the reasons to keep above, but to keep it short: It's well researched, cites good sources, this should not be the first step to write your grievances, and if you wanna get rid of this one then you should nominate every single other article that uses the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence," most notably Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011, one of the worst sequences in modern history that was 6 days long. Nobody's getting rid of that one, and thus this one is staying too. SouthernDude297 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that getting rid of everything that contains this blanket term would also imply getting rid of other infamous outbreak sequences such as the May 2019 tornado outbreak sequence which saw hundreds of twisters touch down. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and New Jersey. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In 2012, the article looked pretty much the same as now. It still needs work, obviously, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I see no reason to disagree with the earlier consensus on notability, which is not lost, and the adequate sourcing turned up in WP:BEFORE searches done during the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond this [53], I don't find anything about this person or the pair of them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF as in the first AfD linked at the top left of this discussion a respected editor Michig identified a number of book sources that convinced him it passed WP:GNG although a number of the links no longer work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter

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

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 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) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not deleted EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No lasting significance or retrospective coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:04, 1 July 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.

Labingi

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

Fails WP:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Judging from the description in Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, they are basically navigation lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The thing is this is a fictional name with only two uses. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When things need disambiguating, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except in this instance disambiguation isn’t needed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a name page this does not need to fullfill WP:GNG as discussed above. I think a sentence adding the Westron version of the name to Bilbo Baggins in the way it does appear at Frodo Baggins#Concept and creation is warranted, and can be verfied by both primary and secondary sources. (I only now have seen that the name appears in the very beginning at Bilbo Baggins, so I am not sure if more is necessary for the name as such. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)) Partially answering Jclemens' question, I did see small pieces of further context, which are probably best included in other articles: The Hobbit Encyclopedia, p. 201, states how we see that the connection between Baggins and Bag End is deliberate, because it also appears in the Westron names. Probably best suited for the Bag End article. This snippet view from Myth Print magazine has criticism on the introduction of the Westron names, referring to Maura Labingi, as they can detract from appreciating the names commonly appearing in the books, like Frodo Baggins. Probably best suited for the Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings article. This article has a bit of commentary on how the names Baggins and Labingi, which both can be related to (to) bag/(to) pocket, are suitable for the character of Bilbo (and Frodo as his heir), i.e. suited for the Bilbo Baggins article. I don't quite get what kind of publication that is, though. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the two things disambiguated are not common names for the characters by a longshot. Per WP:NAMELIST, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I assume this also applies to fictional characters, making this DAB page blatantly violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are literally father and son. They are the only two people listed. We don't need a surname list when everyone on the list is related. We do not have Obama (name) or Biden (name) for the same reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manyiel Wugol

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

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below

https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq

https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 2 July 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 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Basil High School for Superiors

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

fails notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Syria. Owen× ☎ 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly non-notable. Astaire (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alread PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously not notable, very clearly written in a biased and impartial tone, and has no sources (WP:OR). Also, what does a "superior student" even mean? —Mjks28 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 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.

Terry Long (white supremacist)

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

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (Washington Post coverage syndicated in the International Herald Tribune) has been added to validate this claim, @Maile66. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is a mess. I believe the subject is probably notable, but I could make a case for good old TNT without prejudice towards recreation. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in TNTing a stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with some of the keeps; it doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources are reliable sources, and there's no significant coverage in any of them. The first mentions the subject, not what he's about, when he was born, what he did in his life, and none of that (which should be a common start in a Wikipedia article). The second one links you to a Google book without telling you what it's about. There is no significant coverage in sight in that link. The third source is not specific; it just points to a list of books without telling you what the subject is about, like all others. Based on what I've viewed with the links and research, there aren't enough sources to meet WP:BLPS; since the person is living, precise sources are needed. Have a look at WP:NPF and WP:PROVEIT. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed. Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 They're books. You can't upload full copies of books online, as that is a copyright violation. I accessed them and determined most of them constitute SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand they're books, but WP:BLPS have strict sourcing when it comes to living persons, and as I said in my vote, I don't think I am comfortable with this article on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Your argument makes no sense. Most of the provided sources are high quality academic books - what exactly is unreliable about them? They're far more reliable than say, newspaper articles. Those are the best kinds of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a link to a cover of a book, not whats within it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2....??? Do you expect people to commit copyright violations to prove it to you? I checked the books myself, they contain sigcov. You can't link anything else besides say, Google Book listings, or you would be committing a crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to a limited extent, you can search within the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you would know WP:DBTN wouldn't you? I'm merely suggesting that since it's a link to a cover of the book, it wouldn't be considered a source because to me, it's not reliable and it clearly says in there that the piece of work itself can affect reliability, which is my main argument here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Those are all links to Google Book listings for the page that 1) show you what book exists, who published it, when, enabling someone to search it out 2) a searchable version of the book's contents, which can verify the information. What is your issue with it?

The link doesn't matter. Offline sources are perfectly fine. The Google Books link is merely a helpful way to find if a book discusses a topic: I have verified that at least three of them do. This is enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @PARAKANYAA for doing the source analysis below. I'll be honest, @Normanhunter2, your assertion that the "none of the sources are reliable sources" is quite strange. The Atkins book is a standard reference work on extremist organizations published by Bloomsbury Academic, a major academic press. The Kinsella book is published by Harper Collins. Both contain significant coverage of Long, which you can see with the in-text search. Bartley is a respected professor at a major Canadian university and his book has sigcov of Long on pages 248-271. Sherren is a prominent journalist who discusses Long in his memoir. And Perry & Scrivens mention Long on four different pages of a book from a respected academic press. Telling us that "they don't really lead anywhere specifically" and that "it's just a link to a cover of a book" suggests that you didn't bother to evaluate the sources. Finally, no one here is attempting to bite the newcomers. I've been active on Wikipedia for years but started engaging in AfDs only about six months ago, and I spent a lot of time observing and learning. I made some mistakes along the way, and I still do now and again, but learning from other participants and taking their proposed sources and analysis seriously has made me a much better editor. For a new editor who's very, very quickly gotten involved in AfD discussions, I would invite you to be a little less dogmatic and a little more open to the sources that your fellow editors turn up as part of this process. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's significant coverage in the books you're researching, then there should be no problem gathering the information off of the book and placing it into the article. Now, I've scanned through the sources, and find it strange that most of the sources come from books, which are written by ideas of people. As for the articles content, I suggest going over WP:ONEVENT, some text inside of it states: 1. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." 2. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." You might ask me, what are you trying to prove here? The answer is, the amount of content on the page, and the single event on the article, I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms possible, if the article has only one notable, highly significant event possible, then the article should be included. In this case, looking at the event in the article, there is a tiny, minuscule event there without any information. I know the Wikipedia guidelines are different then what other people think when they read the article, but to me, when I am viewing the article, In the 1980s and early 1990s, he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta. doesnt..quite make sense to me. There is no aftermath of the rally, no pictures of the rally or the person either. We only know this person exists through text. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about WP:CONTN, disregard the message where it includes the articles content. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start with all these ideas!?
There is nothing that requires an editor to add the content to the article if he or she supplies it in an AfD as evidence of notability. (I have my own editorial priorities and limited time to participate in Wikipedia.)

You "find it strange that most of the sources come from books." Read WP:RS -- the kinds of books I have suggested here (academic books and books published by major publishing houses) are, depending on the context, generally considered high-quality sources. Plus, I have mentioned newspaper sources (several in the article and more here along with book texts you can evaluate with a free archive.org account: https://archive.org/details/texts?tab=collection&query=%22terry+long%22+%22provost%2C+alberta%22&sin=TXT.

The presence of pictures is not an indicator or notability, nor is their absence evidence of non-notability.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned the guideline WP:RS, what inside of the section should I be looking at here to get a better understanding of your argument here? I'm sure you know that there needs to be multiple, reliable sources on here. Could you explain how the book sources are reliable? It would be helpful if you provided enough information on the books to establish readability on the sources to make sure they're books, otherwise, it could potentially be deleted. Could you also explain to me how those sources fit into the article, and also reliable as well? I'm still sticking to my WP:ONEEVENT point, because it is true that there's only one event on that article (unless if you find another event). Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Why is any source reliable? They're published from qualified major publishers with a reputation for fact checking. What information do you have that they're unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are usually significantly worse sources than books, FWIW: if there's a reliable book source I would almost always rather use that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you've answered your own question at the first part of your sentence. What information do you have that they're reliable? I should be asking you that contradictory question here.

1. For this sentence "Terry Long (born May 1, 1946) is the former leader of Aryan Nations in Canada" there's 3 sources that apparently connect to the source, almost a WP:CITEKILL and a WP:REFBOMB.

2. For the sake of it, I did some research on the authors (obviously using google), and i found some that are deemed not notable. See here, and here.

3. For the 4th footnote I couldn't find anything about that, and no link has been provided for the newspaper source, that's a little problem here. (If you could provide me the link to that newspaper link then I would go over and read it, but otherwise I wouldn't consider that a source at all).

4. I went to archive.org and looked at the sources, turns out that it does mention the subject. But still, based on what I've seen here, it's not a notable event. Read WP:BLP1E, it states: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which it does on the newspaper article here. The second reason according to the guideline The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". As mentioned on the article, the person is only recognized for one event, which kind of makes this a low-profile individual. Last one here: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." On the newspaper article, it does not thoroughly explain his mention of organizing a white-supremacist group and what he did specifically in that event. All it says is In 1990, the Canadian Aryan Nations’ leader, then Terry Long, organized a white-supremacist gathering in rural Provost, Alberta, that made for the first time that Canadians felt that hate was sprouting from their soil. (it also briely explained that they burnt down a cross and displayed swastikas at non-racism protesters) So this also fails WP:BLP1E too, not enough in-depth coverage at all. In fact, this event has very little significance.

5. Just a side note here, I would vote on even a weak keep here, but I think delete is the best option here. If the article had more information about the event, I'd gladly change my vote here. But otherwise, I am sticking to my nomination here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The NOTABILITY of an article topic is unrelated to the state of the article. Sourcing exists. I volunteer to improve the article should it be kept with the available sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the "one event"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. That is irrelevant to the general notability of the article: notability does not depend on the current state of the article, it depends on the existences of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think they're reliable sources? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they're published by reliable authors and publishers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they reliable when I couldn't find them by doing a simple google search? Even on the books section too. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2

"how are they reliable when i couldn't find them on google"

oh my god.

Google is bad. Google has no determination on source reliability. Google does not show you the most reliable sources. Most of what you find on Google nowadays is AI generated spam nonsense that is less than worthless.

Best sources are academic books and journals, neither of which you will find on Google. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if Google is bad, then wouldn't Google Books or Google Scholar be bad too because they branch off of it? There's also AI generated spam for books and even scholars too, it's everywhere. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google, the search engine, is not good for searching for serious academic treatment of topics. Google Books and Google Scholar aren't perfect but are OK for books and journal articles respectively. They contain some garbage but good stuff too. Google, be it books/scholar or the search engine is nothing but a venue for which to search for sources. Source reliability does not depend on popularity - the Daily Mail is plenty popular, but is one of the least reliable sources imaginable, but a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They never sourced the Daily Mail on the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 ... I don't even know what to say at this point I think this might be a CIR issue PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a CIR issue, and you probably knew I was kidding about that. If you didn't, I apologize for that. On the article though, they sourced The Ottowan Citizen but I can't find the page or the year of the release where it says that information. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The sources currently in the article don't matter. IIRC the Ottawa Citizen is on newspapers.com so I can go check that later. We have plenty of book sources listed below that are much more reliable and significant than what newspaper coverage is there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, there's only one event on the article. I'm not saying "significant event' because it barely has any coverage of it right now. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 What is in the article right now has no bearing on notability. That is not what BLP1E means. Read WP:NEXIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one small event exists in the article, that's my problem here. Not enough significant coverage on it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 What exists in the article at the moment is completely unrelated to its notability, given the capacity for improvement with existing sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on it's reliability. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 ... of the sources that exist, yes? Which we have repeatedly established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well..I mean the reliability of the source. If it's a strong one, or a weak source, or a source that doesn't related to the subject at all. That's why I did my inital research of the sources on the article to make sure they were correct.

Even if they were correct, they still are written by people with their own ideas and perspectives of things in the real world. I believe that only notable authors can be accepted as reliable and not unknown authors. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The idea that only notable authors are allowed as reliable sources is absolutely ludicrous and under this standard 90% of articles on wiki are not notable. There is not a single aspect of policy that reflects this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I've said enough about this nomination. We'll see what people think about this. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: I've blocked Normanhunter2 as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Source analysis, since no one else felt like doing it:

Atkins: This is an encyclopedia of the far right, contains a full length entry on Long. Describes him as "one of Canada's leading" far right figures.

That Wasn't The Plan, couldn't find a copy of this, but from the Google Books preview it seems to discuss Long in depth, going into his plans for racist groups in Alberta in some detail.

Perry & Scrivens seems to be passing mentions

Kinsella seems to have at least two pages of coverage on him on 135-136, as well as 158-159.

Bartley contains sigcov throughout the book, describing Long as a "huge benefit" to recruiters for the KKK, and generally his involvement in these circles.

In conclusion, he passes the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bartley book has a couple of dozen pages on him, as listed in the index. Ditto Perry and Scrivens - see pg 273 of the index which shows extensive coverage. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Food and drink, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: Article reads like an advert, and subject doesn't look notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but the new sources you added seem to be more WP:ROTM coverage from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone wrote a book and mentioned in it that he deserved a Wikipedia article, he might get on the front page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Really? That's your rebuttal? Do you have any actual reason why Kiper's page should not be deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of ulterior purpose. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda... BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: A "random dude" who has spoken at numerous events and been in polls along the other candidates he's running against who do have articles. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Being included in a poll and speaking at events does not prove notability. That's to be expected of just about any candidate in an election. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and political candidates. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Luckily, that's just your opinion and not what is actually expressed regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines you referenced. Then again, I would expect you to know that if you weren't so busy engaging in personal attacks against the opinions of others.

Keep: User @BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from 2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in 2022 and 2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.

Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)

From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiple journalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)

In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.

Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.

Kiper article satisfies the criteria for notability. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone of personal attacks and then claim their opinion is "stupid". I hope that the closing administrator here can take that into account when assessing this user's viewpoints in this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the note about GNG applying below, the political campaign stuff specifically doesn't apply and the other articles are not about him, so doesn't meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received coverage from various outlets and he's also received coverage for his non-political work. There are plenty of other individuals on Wikipedia who have done far less and achieved notability and his notability is going to grow over the next several months as he campaigns. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for deletion unfortunately - political candidates are deleted unless they are otherwise notable, as they always receive a certain level of coverage and are rarely notable after the campaign finishes. If the campaign itself had sustained coverage that's a different story, but that is incredibly rare at this level of election. The coverage of his restaurant isn't coverage of him and would not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia if he hadn't ran for office, either. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline and I don't believe the subject meets this standard so he would have to meet GNG. A source analysis would be helpful here. There are two other points, the previous AFD closed as a Redirect, not a Deletion. Secondly, there is subpar behavior on the part of several participants which are snide remarks. If this continues, I will block editors from particpating in this AFD during its duration. Please, this is not how experienced editors talk to each other. Very disappointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I would absolutely be in favor of a redirect. As for the question about sources, as has been mentioned previously by several voters, nearly every article cited on the page is WP:ROTM coverage of either the campaign or Kiper's restaurant (and, as others pointed out, coverage of Kiper's restaurant helps establish the notability of the restaurant, not Kiper himself). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. In almost any political year, non notables run for office, for the free publicity it gives them and/or their non-political careers. This is one of those. He has no past history of political office experience. Most of the article is about is his non-political background. The section "Political career" is misleading, as he's had no career in politics other than a zoning board and town council. Attending a college rally as a spectator in the crowd is not notable. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect (probably with protection this time). As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. Being included in public opinion polls is not a notability criterion, so the attempt above to claim that he's notable because he polled higher in 2024 than some other guy did in the past doesn't wash — that other guy actually held a notable office, so the fact that he didn't win one particular election is irrelevant because he's more than just an unelected candidate by virtue of having held a different NPOL-passing office. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but absolutely nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that the origional redirect was reverted, I would support any protection level that would keep that from happening again. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Candidates for a state-wide race should be redirected to the election race, as a usual and appropriate outcome, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing does not suggest a GNG pass. I agree that protection should be given to prevent a new article from being created until such time as the subject wins election to an NPOL office. Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 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 00:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarReg UK

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fixed the citation issue. A before search on Google reveals that "CarReg UK" meets the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV especially within the English world. Consider keeping this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazi Culze (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - rests on primary and WP:GUNREL sources. Google hits are not a measure of notability, please review WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are occasional articles about personalised number plates which quote the company founder, such as those referenced in the present article and this BBC item. These don't provide the depth of coverage about the company needed for WP:CORPDEPTH; the most detailed that I can see is a 2021 "London Post" item ("CarReg Private Number Plates Celebrating 33 Years!" - link blocked here) but that is advertorial in tone. Overall, fails to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 1 July 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrothelium chulumanense}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karvanista}}<!--Relisted-->