Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 09	October 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. On balance, the Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keeps, the latter mostly relying on the unproven assertion about the existence of secondary SIGCOV sources. However, after three weeks, consensus failed to materialize. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yolette Lévy

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

Biography of a smalltown municipal councillor and activist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for local politicians or activists. As always, neither city councillors nor activists are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about their work to validate its significance — the notability test at the WP:NPOL #2 level for local politicians hinges on the depth and range of reliable source coverage, not on merely verifying that she existed.
But 16 of the 20 footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and of the just four hits that come from real GNG-worthy media, two are just death reportage from the local media in her hometown; one is just a short blurb about her winning a minor award that isn't highly notable enough to clinch an instant "she's notable because she won this award" freebie all by itself for a person who's otherwise this poorly sourced; and the last one doesn't mention her name at all, and is here solely to verify via her absence from it that she didn't win a city council seat in the election that it's "sourcing", and thus isn't a demonstration of her notability. (And meanwhile, all of the city council elections she did win are supported by the primary sourcing rather than GNG-worthy analysis about her work on the council.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Bearcat makes a good case for deletion here. Being on the board of UQAT is not notable, most of the sources are from the applicant's death. However, while Deletion is not cleanup, if sources could be found that talk about her as the first Haitian city councilor of Val d'Or, maybe that would be something toward notability, but otherwise it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She was an important union player, pushing for women's rights.--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what sourcing establishes the permanent significance of her work as a union organizer, considering that her union work is referenced entirely to the primary sourcing here? Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a start? I expect we could find much more about her union activities in support of women if we had better access to the French-language Quebec press.--Ipigott (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lot more than just one source to establish notability on that basis, especially when that one source is just her obituary from the local television station, where coverage of the deaths of local figures is merely expected — we would need to see evidence of her being widely recognized as a union organizer beyond just her own city, which is still lacking. Also, the French-language Quebec press googles just the same as English-language press does, so we don't lack that kind of access at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added sources from radio Canada, and also found out that a beer was named after her after her death to honour her community enngagement. Her role as president of the STENOQ trade union for teachers also appears in a 1996 history book about the region Histoire de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue published by the Institut Québécois de Recherche sur la Culture. Nattes à chat (talk)

The article is still referenced very overwhelmingly to primary sources rather than reliable ones that count as support for notability, having a beer named after them isn't a reason why a person would get a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and local history books don't secure international notability all by themselves if purely local coverage is all the person has. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my understanding of WP:NPOSSIBLE which says Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.. She is mentioned in Histoire de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, though to what degree I cannot say due to lack of access on my part. There is an award named after her, here is a source stating she was named to the Board of Directors Université du Québec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Page 16 of this source details her accomplishments, the awards she won in life, and the award named after her. This source substantiates her status as having won an award. This source describes her winning the Alexina Croteau award as well as speaking of her accomplishments including being President of a Union and that she was the coordinator of the World March of Women in Vallée-de-l’Or. There is also this source which was published years after her death and is described as a regional and independent socio-cultural newspaper whose mission is to provide information on cultural life and social and political issues in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Considering the existence of an award named after her, a resolution mentioning setting her name aside for future usage, and her status on the Board of Directors for Université du Québec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue and her involvement in the World March of Women, I find it probable to believe that there are sources in Quebec newspapers that we might not have access to. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources do not support notability. Having an award named after her is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim for a person if your source for that is the self-published website of the award rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; winning a minor local or regional award is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim for a person if your source for that is content self-published by that award rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; resolutions mentioning her from the city government are not notability-clinching notability claims for a person if your source for that is the self-published website of the city government rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; and on and so forth. Nothing is ever an article-clinching notability clain until it causes WP:GNG-worthy third-party media coverage to be generated about it in sources independent of the statement, and "locally important to a small city" (a thing which every single city councillor who ever existed at all could always claim) is not enough of a reason why a small-town city councillor would be exempted from having to pass GNG on proper GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her work in real media.
(And just for the record, Val-d'Or's GNG-worthy newspaper is the Citoyen, not whatever the hell "L'Indice bohémien" is.) Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, L'Indice bohémien L'Indice bohémien est un journal culturel régional et indépendant qui a pour mission d'informer les habitants de la région sur l'actualité artistique et culturelle de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue. En parlant des gens du milieu culturel de la région, L'Indice bohémien veut contribuer à la professionnalisation des artistes, au rayonnement de ceux-ci partout en région et à l'extérieur, ainsi que soutenir la promotion générale de l'ensemble du milieu culturel de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

They also have an editorial board. Per Wikipedia:Tiers_of_reliability#Other_generally_reliable_news_sourcesTrade publications and Regional and local news are generally reliable sources. L'Indice bohémien is an independent regional publication that focuses on artistic and cultural news. Among their listed partners are the Conseil de la culture de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and Ministère de la Culture et des Communications.

Just because we don't have access to the sources don't mean they don't exist. There is a strong probability that events, awards, etc. were covered in newspaper publication. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article

Again, she is mentioned in an academic history book. A regional independent newspaper which you've randomly asserted isn't reliable, a source that says she was responsible for coordinating an event, she was the president of a Trade Union, there is an award name after her, a proposal in a resolution to set her name aside for future use, and she also won multiple awards in her lifetime. The probability that some news coverage we do not have access to does is exist is more likely than not. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat has summed up well. True - there may be scources out there we don't have access to. There may not. If we start working on the basis of "there might be an RS out there somewhere" being good enough we will have lost the plot. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tak Yong-bin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simione001: How do you know he fails GNG? Did you look at even a single North Korean news source from the time? I mean, he's top 15 all-time in caps and football is well-covered in North Korea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Draftify. From a quick look, there appears to be a decent claim to notability, such as, as mentioned above, being top 15 all-time in caps; scoring the winning goal in the historic 1991 North-South Korean unification match (which still is covered to this day); and per [1] receiving the honor of People's Athlete, the highest achievement in North Korean sports which is a pass of WP:ANYBIO. Like I have for other North Korean footballers, if draftified (or kept) I'll turn it into something decent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beanie, good arguments re:People's Athlete honour. Giant Snowman 18:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, or Keep if draftify doesn't seem reasonable to others. I think it passes notability from the arguments above, but the article needs to be improved. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Calil (businessman)

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

Fails WP:BIO. None of the provided sources are WP:SIGCOV, mainly 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nigeria, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Significant coverage specific to this person is missing. Lorstaking (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He seems to have been well-known locally, but he really didn’t do anything extraordinary. Alexfope, can you rebut what appears to be a fairly strong case for deletion? Bearian (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator last edited on WP in July 2024, so am unsure if they are active. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see sources calling him a pioneer in the groundnut industry in Kano. Perhaps, this constitutes to WP:ANYBIO? Best, Reading Beans 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no. LibStar (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 2010 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Nam-chol (footballer, born 1988)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Not to be confused with Pak Nam-chol (footballer, born 1985). Simione001 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the 2010 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea where his name is mentioned. Simione001 might also perform a bold redirect for the '85 liner to that tournament target as I did recently. Corresponding articles for both footballers on Korean Wikipedia are unsourced stubs. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as argued above. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lake Wingra. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wingra Creek

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

Not notable, fails WP:NGEO. A basic BEFORE search found nothing reliable. Could potentially be redirected to Lake Wingra. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (as per nom) >>> Lake Wingra. Djflem (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselmotive Company, Inc.

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

Dieselmotive Company is a locomotive leasing company. They're of interest to some railfans because they buy old locomotives. However, I cannot find any instances of significant coverage of this company. Sure, there are brief mentions in Trains Magazine and Railfan & Railroad, but they are focused on specific locomotives and only briefly discuss this company. The lack of significant coverage is most clear in how this article is basically just a railfan locomotive roster with almost zero information on the company itself. WP:NCORP is a fairly high bar, and this company doesn't come close to meeting it at this time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the coverage I could find was about the organisation's aquistions (locomotvies) which is routine coverage. In that coverage the company was only mentioned in passing. I couldn't find any coverage in relaible sources, which are secondary and in which the company is addressed directly and in detail. That is, this appears to fail WP:NCORP. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sinaia. Closer flashback: I lived in Sinaia 32 years ago and haven't thought of this town in quite a few years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles of Freedom Plaza

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

No particular indication of notability; a war memorial like any other. The sources all refer to its inauguration: two are routine coverage in local news, one an army press release. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sinaia where it is located. I disagree with the nominator as it is not a standard war memorial as it recognises all US troops who died in Romania in WWII not local troops and the inauguration was attended by United States Defense Attaché to Romania, Colonel Paul T. Matier, and the Dutch Ambassador to Bucharest, Mr. Matthijs van Bonzel. Of course the coverage is about its inauguration, what other coverage would there be ? However, there's not really enough content for a standalone article so a merge would be suitable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the Dutch ambassador to Romania doesn’t have much to do; of course he’ll seize the opportunity to take a trip to a mountain resort and briefly stand around while someone else reads some platitudes about two countries, neither of which is his own. Pretty routine, in my view. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat unusual regarding the fact that a number of the US airman honoured were killed by the Romanians. This was while Romania was aligned with Nazi Germany against the Soviet forces,according to this here, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I’d support a merger as a second choice. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as an ATD. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. for now. No prejudice against renomination or redirecting in the near-ish future. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecobank Bulawayo Heist

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it yet. There are still recent articles a week later, and there is allegedly an international element, so it seems to be more than just "today's news" from 3 October. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This isn't 'just' a news article on the apparent 25 armed robberies a day that happen in Zimbabwe. At 4 million dollars, this is possibly the biggest bank heist in the country. Interpol has been asked for assistance. There is fairly significant diversity in coverage right now (but not much depth). Let's see if there is continued coverage over a duration of time, or whether this is just another nothing-burger.OXYLYPSE (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OXYLYPSE, is there a "list of" we could add it to if the coverage stops in a month? It needs a mention somewhere, even if we don't end up finding enough for a whole page. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain Potentially List of bank robbers and robberies - Wikipedia? OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Check Point. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check Point VPN-1

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

No real sources on this article demonstrating notability, and only one source I could find online. Fails WP:NCORP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and California. Skynxnex (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredibly minor product offering from an otherwise notable company. Lack of sustained coverage reflects that. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as vast amounts of literature were written on the subject, readily accessible through Google Books, including in bundled magazines. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies. gidonb (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a grand total of two books on the topic and they are technical manuals. The higher standard of WP:NCORP applies here, so they don't qualify as sources. Any content worth keeping should be covered in the main article about the company. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more and NCORP does not apply as VPN-1 is a technology, not a company. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP states "this page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service." And the introductory sentence of the article is "VPN-1 is a firewall and VPN product." Brandon (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in searching for this product in the EBSCOhost databases, provided free of charge by the The Wikipedia Library. There's lots of results there, though I don't know enough to evaluate the reliability of those sources, and am not enthusiastic enough about this topic to look through all of them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If there are reliable sources out there, please do not just mention that they exist, bring them to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the EBSCOhost results, they're mostly reviews of VPN-1 software and devices in technical magazines - e.g. there's one in Network Computing from 2000, two in Network World from 2000 and 2005, and one in Server Management from 2007. There's also a ComputerWorld article from 2001 about a security hole in VPN-1. I'd consider all of these to be reliable, independent sources, and they go into as much technical depth as I'd expect from a networking magazine. I didn't find any really early reviews that would support the material about why VPN-1 was novel when it first came out, though. Adam Sampson (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check Point has dozens and dozens of products, of which VPN-1 is just one that doesn't standout as the 1 or 2 products we should have an article on. Even Cisco, the most prominent networking vendor, suffers from this problem. Category:Cisco products is an arbitrary collection of Cisco products that is in no way comprehensive or even reflects the most notable subset of their products. Perhaps we should merge this article to List of Check Point products and in the future if sections are fleshed out enough they can be split into their own articles? Brandon (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that sounds reasonable. You could even just merge into the article about the company. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can only Merge articles to existing target articles. So this needs to be created before this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the company article (Check Point) for now. If a list of products is spun out it can be retargeted and any appropriate content merged then, though it's not clear to me there is any content appropriate to merge considering it's currently essentially unsourced. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 (British Board of Film Classification)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to lack standalone notability, and much of it is unsourced and may be WP:OR. What references there are do not establish WP:SIGCOV:
1 is just a list of the BBFC's ratings.
2 is primary.
3 comes the closest to SIGCOV, but is mostly about 9 Songs as a case study for general film censorship in the UK, and only briefly mentions the 18 rating.
4 just links to the Channel 4 website. Probably a dead link.
5 is WP:USERG and essentially just a list.
6 covers a completely different rating system and never mentions the BBFC, or Cannibal Holocaust, as it is claimed to. I have no idea why this is cited, and it might just be a mistake.
7-9 are primary.
The external link is just describing the rating, and BFI has pages that go into similar detail about the other ratings.
Google Scholar lists many articles that briefly refer to the 18 rating, but none that focus substantially on it. [2] This article comes the closest, but is mostly a comparison of British and French rating systems in their entirety, and covers the 15 rating in just as much detail. Google Books and JSTOR similarly list several books/articles that mention the 18 rating, but none that give it substantial focus. All of them focus either on film censorship in the UK, or the BBFC as a whole. Those that do discuss the 18 rating, such as [3], discuss other ratings in similar detail. The 18 rating might be mentioned more often than the others in secondary sources, but this is because it is the rating censored films usually have. The 18 rating itself is never the main topic, and does not have SIGCOV. Discussion of the 18 rating individually, while definitely more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, appears insufficient to establish standalone notability compared to the U-15 ratings.
The BBFC is the only rating system I'm aware of that has individual pages for specific ratings. The standard practice is to include information about ratings on the system's page, as with Pan-European Game Information or Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft. Ratings from other systems with their own pages tend to be notable due to their rarity, and their articles are usually lists, such as List of NC-17 rated films or List of AO-rated video games. The BBFC 18 rating is not particularly rare, so it does not meet what appear to be the criteria for a standalone page (a list would be far too long). Most of the content of this article is already covered in British Board of Film Classification, History of British film certificates, and Film censorship in the United Kingdom. There is already ample information here on the 18 rating, and this article should redirect to British Board of Film Classification#Current certificates. Masskito (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Law, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a detailed article, whose sourcing can be improved, just like R18. But significant coverage in reliable sources warrants a standalone page. Civil Liberties and Human Right, p. 560 (Fenwick, H. (2009). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Taylor & Francis); Smartt, U. (2017). Media & Entertainment Law Taylor & Francis; Controversial Images: Media Representations on the Edge (2012). Palgrave Macmillan, and so on, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fenwick does discuss the 18 rating in some detail, but this is only a small part of a broader discussion of the BBFC and film censorship in the UK, and this book also substantially refers to censorship within other ratings, e.g. Fellowship of the Ring being passed PG. The main topic is never the 18 rating, it's film censorship, and the 18 rating is only mentioned more because it's the rating censored films usually have.
Smartt only provides a general overview of the BBFC, and barely mentions the 18 rating at all. Yes, there is a section on film censorship, which, of course, refers mostly to 18-rated films, but even this section has few mentions of the 18 rating. Again, the 18 rating is only tangentially discussed.
Lockyer et al. do discuss the 18 rating in detail, but, again, the main focus is on film censorship in the UK. The points made in these articles are equally relevant to the Film censorship in the United Kingdom article. Individual articles on ratings like these aren't standard on Wikipedia, and, to my knowledge, similar articles in the past have been merged, such as TV-MA. I see no reason for this article not to also be redirected (to British Board of Film Classification) or merged (to Film censorship in the United Kingdom). I don't see this article ever being more than a description of the rating with content that could easily be merged elsewhere, even if it is properly referenced. Masskito (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Obviously this has massive coverage in books and periodicals, which comes up immediately on even the most cursory search. I could point, for example, to this discussion of changes to the scope of the classification: [4] [5] [6]. James500 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all just about the BBFC generally, and also discuss other ratings in similar detail. These aren't SIGCOV of the 18 rating as a standalone topic. Masskito (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it would be helpful for the nominator to review the sources brough to this discussion and offer feedback on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riana Lynn

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

Non-notable "AI pioneer" peddling dubious AI "inventions". Did you know the AI craze has reached foods? This individual has been the recipient of such accolades as "acknowledged in the list of 83 Black founders and investors to know in 2024 by Pitchbook". This is a typical BLP of highly questionable notability that has been jammed full of incidental mentions, paid promotions, self-published source, and listicles which do not contribute to notability. I reviewed a number of the sources looking for anything substantive and came up empty. Setting aside my personal distaste for AI and the notability problems, this is also poorly written boosterism, with cringe-inducing writing such as "In her career, Lynn has graced hundreds of different stages as a public speaker, keynote, and panelist including Keynoting IBM's Innovation conference in 2020, Food AI Summit held in 2023, in Alameda, SXSW future of food in March 2021, and BigIdeasATX3, hosted by Silicon Hills News." I could make a source assessment table, but I'd rather not spend an hour sorting through the 38 low quality references present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are PR items and trade journals. This does feel PROMO, having patents isn't terribly notable; most of the sourcing used in the article is mostly yellow per Source Highlighter, of questionable quality. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Technology, Illinois, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I found WP:SIGCOV in one WP:RS of the subject in the Chicago Tribune and a paragraph in USA Today. I would move this article to Draft so it could be re-written to remove the WP:PROMO tone and include more reliable sources. Some of the aforementioned "yellow" sources, e.g. Cosmopolitan, may be OK. Nnev66 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Chicago Tribune source looks decent, and USA Today is reliable but the extent she's mentioned is below what I'd call significant coverage personally. If editors believe this can be salvaged, I will not oppose draftification. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given Bearian's comment below that this has already been draftified, I change my position on this and prefer deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe someday, but this does not yet merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and lacks adequate WP:RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s already been draftified once. TOOSOON and TNT. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Torbjørn Schei

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

No sources cited in the article since its creation in 2016, fails WP:BIO and ~~WP:SINGER~~WP:BANDMEMBER. Mika1h (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Norway. Mika1h (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Merapoh bus tragedy

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

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Malaysia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst unfortunate, fails WP:EVENT, for lack of WP:EFFECT and lasting coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Khadka

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

Promotional page, not close to meeting WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a number of people with this name, but I don’t see sources to indicate this one is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Petrosyan

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources, when translated, are simple name checks. Editor now blocked as a sock having been previously blocked for disruptive editing in creating a plethora of non-notable articles about minor Armenian show business individuals. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everspark

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

This article is a SEO / digital marketing company that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article has 3 references. The first is a press release. The second is a company profile on Business Insider that is obviously written by the company itself. The third reference is a Wall Street Journal article about small businesses of which Everspark is presented as one example. The coverage is superficial consisting of a single paragraph much of which is a quote from the company founder. My own search turns up no useful sources for establishing notability. Whpq (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if I could second the nomination, I would. Basically lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny SEO shop, probably a dozen people, employees get occasionally quoted in the news but no indication of notability or even significance. Would tag for A7 but since this is closing tomorrow anyway... Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Kyong-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Storm

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

I'm not seeing anything that would make this apparently routine Revolutionary War soldier notable. WP:BEFORE turned up a brief paragraph in a book describing local history of Indiana counties, but I'm not seeing the sort of coverage that would be required to meet WP:GNG here. The current sourcing is a source for an ancillary topic and his primary source pension records. Hog Farm _Talk 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Hog Farm _Talk 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any significant coverage in multiple secondary sources per WP:NBASIC and no evidence of any particular notability under the criteria of WP:ANYBIO - Dumelow (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A soldier who existed, that's about it. Cited to his pension record of all things and padded out with an explanation of what a dragoon is. A search brings up nothing of relevance for notability. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than the average American Revolutionary War soldier. Then redirect to John B. Storm, add a hatnote there to John Storme and Australian National Drag Racing Association#John Storm Memorial Trophy, before deleting John Storm (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No indication of notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. References only establish that Storm existed, but nothing else that could help establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per GNG or ANYBIO. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoComplete (company)

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

Unequivocally fails WP:NCORP. Only two of the references are about the subject of the article itself, one is a press release and the other is an article covering a routine fundraising event from an outlet with questionable reliability. Brandon (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Brandon (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a car insurance intermediary start-up. Most of the History section is a recital of the founders' previous commercial activity, which is not relevant to the notability of the present company; aside from that we have a funding announcement which is WP:CORPTRIV. The remainder of the article is a promotionally-worded product summary (I note a previous Draft was deleted as G11 promotional). Fails to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AllyD. Also, the creator a SPA who is another fan of AI. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that the company fails criteria for now, but it has good reputation and links which talk about it.
Draftify it until we get something more about this company. HatedCreak (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Hovhannisyan (singer)

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

No evidence of any notability. Three of the sources are YouTube or similar videos. The Zark source reads like a CV but could count towards notability idf there was several others from RSs. SDearches reveal nothing but Armenian sources may not be readily visible to searches in English language search engines. Author now blocked from creating articles and may be a paid editor. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article creator has now been fully blocked for sockpuppetry, though the article is not eligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perilous Passage

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

Too little to sufficiently meet the GNG to have its own article. A mention on the author's own article page is sufficient. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apologies as I am too busy to format this, but searching the title on ProQuest shows that this has reviews in Choice magazine, Labour magazine, Journal of World History, Science & Society and probably more. ProQuest is a WPL resource so it can be verified that way. Passes NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recommend withdrawal: Far more than enough coverage for NBOOK. Reviewed in Indian Historical Review ([7]), Journal of Agrarian Change ([8]), Development and Change ([9]), Labour/Le Travail ([10]), Journal of World History ([11]), Science & Society ([12]), Economic and Political Weekly ([13]) and Social Scientist ([14]). I'm sure I could dig up more if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ARandomName123's reviews are more than sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Liolin

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

Fails WP:GNG, has no reliable source. Sekundenlang (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is wrong about the sources; the article does not have inline sources as it should, but it does have external links. Per WP:BISHOPS, there are always likely to be sources on Orthodox bishops and this is no exception. Even without BISHOPS, we have a WP:GNG pass with coverage in the Boston Globe and an Orthodox Times obituary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable person - just need sources. LefterDalaka (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep articles on bishops of major denominations. And meets WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Good Neighbor Day

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

Orphan article with no meaningful content and three contradictory facts. Nick Levine (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s an orphan article, and a stub at that, but the holiday is real, a quick google throws up literally hundreds of current references to it in various local newspapers talking about local events celebrating it this year, and the three contradictory facts aren’t contradictory - all three have sources proving they happened, as simply clicking on the source links shows immediately. It was invented, THEN Carter make a proclamation, THEN the senate passed a resolution, three different steps, taken over time, to promote the holiday. Like, sure, someone should absolutely edit the article to make it better, and I would have thought that would be the first step rather than listing it for deletion, policy certainly suggests it should be, but this is a no-brainer for keeping with THAT many sources showing sustained news coverage over literally decades, including 6 articles filed today alone. Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT, which requires WP:DEPTH in sourcing. There are literally thousands of news stories about this holiday, but they're all brief and light human-interest news items that do not go into any depth on the subject. All we're left with are the presidential proclamations and congressional resolution, which are (a) WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and (b) the kind of thing that presidents and Congress issue in vast volumes every business day. We do not have articles on every pretend holiday or observance month Congress has recognized with a courtesy resolution, because there would be thousands if not tens of thousands of them, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Bottom line: No WP:SIGCOV, no WP:DEPTH, no WP:GNG, no WP:NEVENT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. An important and compelling question raised on the article Talk page was essentially "Why are there three different dates given for National Good Neighbor Day?" That question has been answered now in the article, which explains that the date was originally observed on the fourth Sunday of September, but is now observed on September 28. It also outlines the history of the national day; the idea originated in Montana, but received support within Congress, and was proclaimed by three Presidents: Richard Nixon in 1973, Gerald Ford in 1976. and Jimmy Carter in 1978. As previous commenter pointed out, there are hundreds of articles mentioning National Good Neighbor Day, but it takes a while to find articles that aren't overly fluffy. For notability I would point to the 2023 USA Today article; this 1978 article in The Missoulian which provides detail on the legislative history; this 2021 Springfield News Reader article logging over 5,000 acts of neighboring documented in Missouri; and this 1976 article in Ohio about how one county observed National Good Neighbor Day. The article has been expanded and sources added; more work could be done to improve it, but coverage is WP:SUSTAINED over time in various national, regional, local and education-specific sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, striking earlier !vote above in light of rewrite and the unearthing of sources that go beyond human interest coverage to constitute WP:SIGCOV; the sources show this goes beyond the general pretend observances recognized by legislatures. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hayden

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

No indication of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Article has no sources and has been this way for just under two decades. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is actually the second nomination for this article; the first was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashburn Xtreme, owing to being part of an only-partially-split bundled nomination (long enough ago that it was a "votes for deletion" nomination, months before it was renamed to AfD). Much like the article itself, that nomination was from Wikipedia's "wild west days" and should not be used as a barometer for compliance (or lack thereof) with 2024 policies and guidelines. I have no opinion or comment at this time beyond that; I simply wanted to note how the soft deletion ineligibility (should it come to that) is much less obvious here than it normally might be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When completing WP:BEFORE, I found reliable sources which can be used to improve this biography. The Monroe News article highlights his lengthy career. Another substantial biogrraphy is on USA Hockey. In searching online newspapers, there are hundreds of hits to be followed up on. This biography should be kept as per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Hockey does not contribute to meeting WP:BASIC as it is not a secondary source nor independent of the subject. The local newspaper article isn't fantastic either, it appears to be quotes from him with some context about his career. AusLondonder (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Flibirigit.--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If sources exist, add them to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single hyper-local source interviewing him about his appointment as "Ice Hockey Rules Committee Chairman for the National Federation of State High School Associations" is not enough for GNG, even if it does go into some secondary detail. USA Hockey is not independent. We need multiple IRS SIGCOV sources and I'm not seeing that for this subject. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m not sure what the debate is here. He doesn’t meet GNG requirements and has not come close to achieving enough RS media coverage. This appears to be an easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything that resembled satisfaction of GNG requirements in that USA Hockey would be considered primary and the article cannot stand on one source. Conyo14 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Monroe News source is a step in the right direction but one source on its own falls short of establishing notability. We'd need three different sources of a similar caliber to keep this article. USA Hockey is clearly not independent of the article subject. Left guide (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Styles

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

Non notable individual. Not as a producer or as a "crack-dealing mogul" (as called by Daily Beast, ref 10, content noticeably absent from the page). Refbombed spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about him. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The crack cocaine movie on netflix was directed by Stanley Nelson; this individual was a "consulting producer". I wouldn't consider that a notable role. The few refs that are in RS mention Stanley, not this person. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability exists as a producer and consulting producer for most renowned movies, one being 'Killing Beef'. Sufficient sources exist and mention his work. Sources can be assessed in previous versions of this article. Rpgea (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No doubt he is not a director of crack cocaine movie but his online recognition and notability as producer are evident on major media platforms which are recognized highly reliable on Wikipedia. These include qchron, pbs.org, queensscene, variety, theguardian, rottentomatoes, archive, the-numbers. Article requires cleanup.Christianjbotella12 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. Basically, producers are rarely notable, because they’re so common and they usually don’t add anything to the creative process. They consult with the director and raise money or interest. We almost always delete such articles. It’s a lie that he directed any films. A lie. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Still

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by the creator. If Still is notable, it would probably be because of offline sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, England, and Canada. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any sources. Sir MemeGod  18:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've blocked the creator of this article for disruptive editing and edit warring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of creator's behavior. The two sources not cited inline establish Still as a professor at Purdue. Looks like he authored multiple textbooks, including 2 editions of Elements of Electrical Engineering. Archive.org if it ever comes back online. This website (Craftsmanspace.com) lists 2 other textbooks by him. And I believe this is a 4th book. However, I'm not sure how to evaluate past textbooks for widespread usage per WP:NACADEMIC Cyanochic (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of an awful article. Before checking these comments I did a quick search on him which found the textbooks mentioned above by Cyanochic. While adding these (so we know what we are discussing) one of them has him as Fellow of AIEE, which should be an automatic pass of WP:NPROF #C3 considering that this has to have been some time ago. Of course the article needs considerable work, some of which I have just started on. I cannot do more today, might be able to tomorrow but others are welcome to add. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 Of course, to prevent the unintentional creation of a hoax, there needs to be some level of verification that Still was a fellow of AIEE. However, once that verification is there, I agree, he might have an article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses, it is on the title page of two of his books after 1916; earlier one have him as a member. Since the publishers were major companies I think it is an adequate source. I emailed IEEE to see if they have anything more. (AIEE became IEEE.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more edits on the Bio page. He has 6 11 books which look to be different, although I added an {{efn}} to clarify that names changed with reprinting. I also added the information about his being elected as a Fellow via what is shown in the title pages of the books. 1915 is the most reasonable date for his election, it is certainly 1914-1916. Maybe IEEE will respond with info but I am not going to hold my breath! Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strange situation indeed. 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: IEEE found an appropriate source which lists him as being elected a Fellow of AIEE in 1914, so WP:NPROF #C3 is satisfied. He might even make #C1 from his books, it does not matter as this should be an automatic. I am not faulting @I dream of horses for her original nomination, the page at that time was awful with a recalcitrant novice editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not faulting me.

Psst, BTW, my pronouns are she/her, not that you're the first to call me a he/him. There are {{they}} and {{them}} templates that can help with that sort of situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ldm1954 - meets NPROF. ResonantDis_tortion 19:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the pass of WP:PROF#C3 now demonstrated, I added 10 published reviews of 6 books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. Not a speedy keep because there was no clear fault with the original nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AEK Athens F.C. results in European football

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

I am also nominating these articles:

Unnecessary WP:FORKs of AEK Athens F.C. in European football. These pages are in violation of WP:NOTSTATS, as articles should not be endless listings of sport statistics.

A match-by-match summary, similar to many other European clubs, can already be found here for AEK Athens. However, no other European clubs list the specific match details (with the date, goals, venue, etc.) for every single international fixture: this is overkill.

These pages also are a WP:FANCRUFT issue, with details on every single booking, substitution, and assistant referees/fourth officials, which is excessive.

We already have season-by-season results with these match summaries on (a) each UEFA competition article, and (b) all AEK Athens season articles (see Category:AEK Athens F.C. seasons, which is complete since the 1960s). We do not need another listing of every single European match result. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Greece. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to !vote either way, but I have no objection to deleting these. My only role in their creation was splitting them off from AEK Athens F.C. in European football after BEN917 added them, which caused the article to exceed the WP:PEIS limit.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed an incomplete article with the results. I can re-add the results in the main article with many of the details removed in order not to exceed the WP:PEIS limit. National teams have pages with their results as well. I believe the footballing community should decide. BEN917 07:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, there exist individual season articles that already include the full match details of each European fixture. It is complete overkill to place all the results in a single article, and a WP:NOTSTATS issue. National team results pages are sub-divided by decade usually, for clubs we sub-divide by season. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I agree and I looked at AEK Athens F.C. in European football, OMG! That's way too much data, I feel that needs slimming down and these forks, well, it's all way too much in my opinion. The forks looks like data duplication to me. Govvy (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Govvy, pure overkill. Giant Snowman 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former Players Turned Coaches For Same Team

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by the creator. I guess it could be sourced, but it would be sourced by pop culture "top ten" lists, and may turn into such a list itself. I guess the question is do we retitle the article and source it or delete the article? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally trivial. Take a look at the listings for the Premier League. If you remove the erroneous listing for Kenny Dalglish, who didn't manage Liverpool in the Premier League, and the even more erroneous listing for Graeme Souness, who wasn't a former Rangers player when he managed them and didn't manage them in the Premier League because they play in a different country, that leaves six entries for the 32 year history of the Premier League. Now TBF I haven't checked to see if this is all the relevant entries, but if only six managers out of the hundreds who have managed in the Premier League were former players of the same club, that clearly isn't a "phenomenon" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is a "phenomenon" or a "trend" as the article claims. It's just something that happens. Of course people who age out of playing and become coaches have personal affinity and relationships with the teams they played for so many coach them, but there's not much more to say about that. Most of the time they had played on or coached multiple teams and it's not like they're coaching former teammates or they have an inherent advantage, though there is a Player-coach article. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these sportspeople are not discussed at length as a group in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am an Australian Football League fan, and this is a commonplace phenomenon there, and would include dozens of coaches. But I can't find any article describing and evaluating the phenomenon. Ultimately this list fails for a lack of secondary sources demonstrating its notability, but the lack of any other sources is also a concern. St Anselm (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing unusual, nothing notable. Giant Snowman 18:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, per nom. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pakistani passport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani passport delay

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

I draftified it, but the creator moved it back to the main NS. I don’t think it meets GNG or even NEVENT. An ATD could be merge into Pakistani passport, but I’m sure my WP:BLAR will be reverted, so I have no choice but to take it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pakistani passport. Gheus (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Normally, we TNT such POV FORKs, but in this case, there’s some useful information. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT Wikibear47 (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzafar Ali Brohi

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

This individual is not a lawmaker, which means they fail NPOLITICIAN, and they don’t meet GNG either, as I couldn’t even find ROTM coverage, let alone SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. My prod was removed without comment by an anon editor. Same surname as article creator, who also tried to create an autobiography, suggesting COI. Wikishovel (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HubdarBrohi. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. Fails GNG, NPOL, and ANYBIO TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC) du[reply]
Comment: article creator blocked for sockpuppetry. Good catch, User:Johnj1995. Wikishovel (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails notability. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Govil-Pai

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

Non notable individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about her. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Computing, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article can be converted into stub as the profile is notable in terms of a C-tech level Google and Android personnel at a significant position. Chris.lee auth (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chris.lee auth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO with no WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES or affiliated sources. Contrary to the page creator above, there is no inherent notability to being an exec at Google. As the nom says, this article has WP:UPE signs all over it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As can be assessed through the WP:N guidelines and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, these are some major third party reliable platforms that mention Shalini as a potential figure in tech industry.

1. https://events.variety.com/EntertainmentTechnology/speaker/861637/shalini-govil-pai

2. https://variety.com/2022/digital/entertainment-industry/ariety-winter-entertainment-summit-industry-future-1235162396/

3. https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1323-16608055-43IJTLORKTH168VQH8G4GJ9HI6

4. https://www.thewrap.com/ai-debate-thegrill-2024-google-fox-usc/

5. https://news.engr.psu.edu/2022/2022-oea-shalini-govil-pai.aspx

6. https://www.psu.edu/news/engineering/story/eleven-alumni-receive-college-engineerings-highest-honor

7. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/seven-prominent-indian-origin-it-industry-women-in-us/shalini-govil-pai/slideshow/20459472.cms

Maverickbl (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maverickbl, it's rather remarkable that your 23rd edit in less than a week as a Wikipedia user is to an AfD discussion! It's not common for new users to find their way here that quickly. That said, you do not appear to understand how the sourcing requirements work for GNG.

Variety is not covering Govil-Pai independently, it's promoting one of its own events at which she spoke.
The Financial Times article is not actual journalism by the FT; it's a required public posting from YouGov and is thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
As with Variety, The Wrap is promoting one of its events, not providing independent coverage.
Penn State is not an independent source; Govil-Pai is an alumna and they are promoting her affiliation with them through this award.
The Economic Times article is a single two-paragraph mention of Govil-Pai in a list of other people. Setting aside the WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems, it's certainly not WP:SIGCOV of Govil-Pai.

Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mukti Bahini. asilvering (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gafur Bahini

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

Article lacks sufficient independent sources to establish notability and relies heavily on a two local disputed references. Its content overlaps with broader articles on the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mukti Bahini, making it potentially redundant. Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the article fails WP:GNG. --CometVolcano (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This is a notable militia. At, this point, I now understand the reason for deleting pages of minor skirmishes, but this is different. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
The user who nominated for deletion, literally deleted sources and then the argument was on relying on two sources, Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Violation - Some of these AfDs have been decided on votes, and not proper arguments. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

~~Draftify if Needed~~ Merge If this topic does not have enough notability, We Shouldn’t Completely Delete it, We could put ~~into draft~~ the information somewhere else. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
- You are welcome to change your recommendation, but if you do so after there has been further discussion, strike through your previous comment using <s>...</s> per WP:AFDDISCUSS. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: After conducting a notability test, I conclude that the article does not meet any notability criteria. The subject of the article does not have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tried to search, but unable to find such coverage, and the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification will not help because this is a historical article, and if no coverage is found now, there is little chance it will receive coverage in the future. GrabUp - Talk 12:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mukti Bahini is ok to me. GrabUp - Talk 17:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mukti Bahini, where this component of the Mukti Bahini is not mentioned but is worth a few sentences. The total information about this militia is essentially the paragraph in The Daily Star. That was later paraphrased in its sister paper, Prothom Alo. Sengupta's 2011 book covers some of the same ground in three sentences. The remaining sources: The Daily Observer, Deutsche Welle, and Banglapedia are passing mentions. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for a merge? Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mukti Bahini.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benz Circle Flyover

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

Imagine if every flyover in the world had an article in Wikipedia. Lacks WP:N. Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources present. The nomination statement seems to be dismissing the article based on its subject, not the sourcing available Garuda3 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also delete Kanakadurga Flyover as well. This is peak WP:MILL. Kinopiko ^talk 03:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MILL is an essay and not policy. Garuda3 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is someone's expression of policy. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be easily merged into Vijayawada article's transportation section. No need for separate article. RWILD ✉ 02:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete, merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Highway 16 (India).TheLongTone (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You need to give some reasoning for your answer or it will be ignored by the closer. Garuda3 (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is little to say, and that little could easil;y be acommodated in the target article. Frequently a subject is better served by being in a wider context. TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a problem here - it's a major engineering project in a busy area, and the sources already in the article show enough sustained coverage to meet GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources for this article are good enough to pass WP:GNG. It leans heavily on The New Indian Express, which, according to the RS Noticeboard is reliable. The Times of India has to be used with caution, but the article cited does not seem to be an advertorial, so it can be used. The other source is The Hans India which is mentioned in RS Noticeboard but without it saying anything about its reliability. DesiMoore (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those voting keep would be more credible if they could be bothered to update the article, which is about a proposed chunk of infrastructure, due for completion in 2022. Has anybody paid it any attention recently??TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm leaning delete on this one. The sources used are borderline reliable, but just the little segment of the road, a flyover is not notable by itself. No major newspaper covers about the flyover in depth and maintaining an article about it doesn't make much sense. The notability guidelines are hence not met per GNG and the lack of any impact of the structure in the economy or any further improvements in the area points towards deletion. We are not a directory (WP:NOTDIR) who keep tabs on all the flyovers of a region with no notability whatsoever. As with the source analysis, TOI is deemed unreliable and should be used cautiously. Others are okay but heavy reliance on News Minute again points towards the lack of notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is reasonable dissent about the sourcing that precludes this from being a clear keep, but the dissent is not strong enough to result in delete. Star Mississippi 19:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pu Zhongjie

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

Declined prod. Prod was removed with a source that is a 1 line mention of Pu. Created by a single purpose editor. Google news has a mere 2 hits. Would reconsider if significant coverage can be found in Chinese. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and China. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on sources in the article. One is a press release, the others are not sigcov. The article itself has basically zero encyclopedic value, consisting entirely of companies he works at and his net worth. I tried looking for Chinese sources – there are some [15][16][17], but independence is questionable and it all probably doesn't add up to meet the GNG. FWIW, I also think the GNG should be strictly enforced for businesspeople à la NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 18:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To paraphrase the line from Hello, Dolly! (film), $380 million doesn’t get you notability, unless you spread it around like manure encouraging little things to grow, and get significant coverage in three or more reliable sources. Other than that, he’s one of thousands of newly minted rich people. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and simply being the 849th richest person in China doesn't guarantee you an article. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "Pu Zhongjie". China Daily. 2012-02-28. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
  The article notes: "Pu Zhongjie, born in 1963, is a doctoral degree holder and has obtained the permanent residence permit of the United States. Dr. Pu founded Lepu Group Co Ltd in 1998 and serves as the chairman of the Board and General Manager. ... Dr. Pu is the director of the Chinese Society of Biotechnology (CSBT), vice president of the Interventional Engineering Committee of CSBT and the member of the Changping CPPCC committee."
2. Li, Yihe 李奕和 (2022-10-31). "乐普系分拆心泰医疗IPO，蒲忠杰难以摆脱"自家生意"，依赖关联交易，增收不增利，上半年纯利下降42%" [The spin-off of Lepu's subsidiary, Xintai Medical, for its IPO sees Pu Zhongjie struggling to break free from "family business" ties, relying on related transactions. While revenue has increased, profits have not, with a 42% decline in net profit in the first half of the year.]. 乐居财经 [Leju Caijing] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "从校服到婚纱，蒲忠杰和妻子张月娥不仅是生意场上最得意的合作伙伴，二者还是同窗校友。蒲忠杰毕业于西安交通大学金属材料专业，在校期间结识了同专业的张月娥，此后结成连理。1999年6月，已获博士学位的蒲忠杰在国外求学期间接触了心脏支架研发的工作后，毅然回国，与妻子张月娥创立了乐普医疗。2009年，乐普医疗作为首批28家公司之一，登陆创业板，一举成为A股“心血管第一股”。"
  From Google Translate: "From school uniforms to wedding dresses, Pu Zhongjie and his wife Zhang Yue'e are not only the most proud partners in the business world, but also classmates. Pu Zhongjie graduated from Xi'an Jiaotong University with a degree in metal materials. During his time at school, he met Zhang Yue'e, who was also a student in the same major, and they later got married. In June 1999, after Pu Zhongjie, who had obtained a doctorate degree, came into contact with the research and development of heart stents while studying abroad, he resolutely returned to China and founded Lepu Medical with his wife Zhang Yue'e. In 2009, Lepu Medical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market as one of the first 28 companies, becoming the "first cardiovascular stock" in the A-share market."
3. "创业板被指为"造富机器" 年产亿万富豪500位" [The ChiNext board is labeled a "wealth creation machine," producing 500 billionaires annually.]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). 2010-10-26. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01 – via China News Service.
  The article notes: "蒲忠杰 1963年出生。乐普医疗总经理。持股市值：66.40亿元。历任北京钢铁研究总院高级工程师，美国佛罗里达国际大学研究助理，美国WP医疗科技公司技术副总经理。他曾参与设计50余项专利，并发表15篇科研文章。1998年，蒲忠杰创办乐蒲集团。与其他创业板富豪榜相比，蒲忠杰是唯一的非实际控制人富豪，纯属“技术投资”。"
  From Google Translate: "Pu Zhongjie was born in 1963. He is the general manager of Lepu Medical. Shareholding value: 6.64 billion yuan. He served as a senior engineer at the Beijing Iron and Steel Research Institute, a research assistant at Florida International University, and the technical deputy general manager of WP Medical Technology Company in the United States. He has participated in the design of more than 50 patents and published 15 scientific research articles. In 1998, Pu Zhongjie founded Lepu Group. Compared with other GEM rich lists, Pu Zhongjie is the only rich man who is not the actual controller, and is purely a "technical investment"."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pu Zhongjie (Chinese: 蒲忠杰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China Daily isn't a RS, I wouldn't count most of those, they seem to be regurgitated Communist Party news items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject needs more significant impact to meet WP:GNGTesleemah (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the sources insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? What made you change your mind from "Keep Subject has significant coverage to meet WP:GNG" to "delete" in two minutes? Cunard (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Cunard. 1.47.149.75 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)— 1.47.149.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment (voted above): Despite the sources found by Cunard, I still lean towards deletion. The "China Daily" source seems, from the website's header, to be some sort of company profile from "Zhongguancun Science Park". It is probably not independent, and I would argue also not sigcov. The other two sources are...okay at best. Given the subject is a businessperson, I am applying the super-strict WP:NCORP perspective, and believe this is not enough to justify keeping the article. Toadspike [Talk] 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zhongguancun is a major technology hub in Beijing. I did not find any evidence that Pu Zhongjie, the founder of Lepu Medical Technology, is affiliated with Zhongguancun Administrative Committee, which administers Zhongguancun.
  Thank you for reviewing the sources and writing, "The other two sources are...okay at best." The other two sources by themselves are sufficient for the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is for evaluating "organizations and companies", while Wikipedia:Notability (people) is for evaluating people. There is no support in any policy or guideline to apply "the super-strict WP:NCORP perspective" to a businessperson. The sources provide significant coverage, are independent, and The Beijing News is an influential newspaper with a wide audience. Cunard (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still a delete. Even with the Cunard sources, they still don't have coverage in RS... China Daily is the mouthpiece of the CCP, and most of those given below appear to rehash the same "press release" for lack of a better term. I don't much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources were published in 2010, 2012, and 2022. How do sources published years apart rehash the "same press release"? What press release are you referring to? I did not find any such press releases. Regarding the China Daily article, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily was closed as (bolding added for emphasis):
  In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.
  This is similar to the consensus at WP:XINHUA, which says, "There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation."
  Pu Zhongjie is not a political topic so the China Daily source is suficiently reliable for factual reporting about him. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It's more than likely propaganda, they're trying to hype up the individual for commercial purposes. I'd prefer better sourcing before changing my !vote. You've got 5 marginal sources, if we had one or two RS and these, it would be different. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are no articles about this Doctor in Gscholar either, I'd expect something if we want to establish medical notability... Otherwise, this is a business person. And 849th richest person isn't notable. Head of a biomedical company could be notable, but the company doesn't seem to be. Having worked in the US isn't terribly notable, the rest is confirmation of how me met his wife, where he went to school. That's simply biographical, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Regarding "It's more than likely propaganda, they're trying to hype up the individual for commercial purposes", there is no commercial incentive for the China Daily, The Beijing News, or Leju Caijing to "hype up" Pu Zhongjie. These three sources are all independent of him and his company. As one editor wrote at a Xinhua RSN discussion (my bolding; the numbering is based on the legend here):
  Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting.
  All domestic mainstream media sources in mainland China are influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. There would be significant systemic bias if influential domestic publications like the China Daily and The Beijing News are not considered sufficiently reliable to establish notability.
  The subject does not derive his notability from having a doctorate, from medical notability, from being one of the "richest" people, from being head of a biomedical company, or from having worked in the US.
  The subject derives his notability from passing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  The sources cover not just his business career but also his personal life. This bolsters his notability as it shows the sources thought it was important to cover different facets of his life. The significant coverage allows the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. No policy or guideline excludes content "that's simply biographical, not notable" from contributing to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  But I'm not sure why he's notable. 800th richest person isn't that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  800th richest person isn't that. No one has supported retention based on Pu Zhongjie's ranking on the richest persons list.
  But I'm not sure why he's notable. He is notable for passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through receiving significant coverage in sufficiently reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  He is notable for passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through receiving significant coverage in sufficiently reliable sources.. That is the objective of the AfD, to determine it meets that, so no need to requote guidelines that experienced editors know. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I requoted the appropriate notability guidelines to follow because one AfD participant supported deletion on the basis of this businessperson not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) while another AfD participant asked "I'm not sure why he is notable". Cunard (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, and this topic received significant coverage, as found by User:Cunard. In my opinion, China Daily is not reliable for political reports, but it can be reliable for other topics. It seems like some users are trying to invoke WP:IDONTLIKE. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn WP:TROUT me for forgetting WP:GEOFEAT. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbrødretorv 15

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

Apart from the use of Danishfamilysearch.dk (a user generated source) there are only two sources listed and neither seems to provide the notability needed by WP:NBUILD. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Denmark. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, Danishfamilysearch is not a user-generated source. The page publishes the original census records, you just need to press "original kilde" ("original source") to see the original census record. Another thing is that the information is also published by the Danish National Archives (see for instance here. Surely what matters for the information to be a valid source is weather it has been published and it has. The link makes it easy to check the source but is not what makes it a valid source (just like you can use a book as a source even if you don't provide an online link to the book. Information from census records are routinely used by recognised historians in articles on individual buildings in Copenhagen, see for instance Ida Haugsted [da]'s article Gips og voks på Østergade og Værnedamsvej' or Allan Tønnesen's Et hus i Amaliegade (I can provide you with lots and lots of other examples). Why wouldn Wikipedia accept a source which is good enough for historians and scientific magazines?Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College

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

The article does not provide substantial independent coverage and depends mainly on promotional content and local news. It fails to satisfy WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party references that demonstrate its significance. Nxcrypto Message 12:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It Should Be Moved to A Draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Why? What are you going to do with the draft that you didn't do when you wrote the article in the first place? – Joe (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Really? I didn’t even properly know what draft was back then in July, I knew a small fraction. Not everyone knows every Wikipedia policy or the majority of them. I will try to Increase the amount of references, What's the problem here? User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is acceptable. The article does not meet notability guidelines as it stands but it is reasonably new, actively edited by a new editor who admits they were not aware of draft space when creating this. Whether the article can be shown to be notable is an open question, but I see no reason to delete a new editor's work while they learn to edit and learn about notability. I don't see any English language sources for this, but as it is a Bangladeshi school, it may be that significant coverage in reliable non English secondary sources can be found. If they can't, this shouldn't get through AFC. If they can, then we have an article and an enthusiastic editor. Seems like a win to me. Just a caution: if draftified, please do get this reviewed through AfC before re-publishing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject looks good except that they lack independent reference to proof their notabilityTesleemah (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Zhean

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

User:Ferdy Xu has been on Wikipedia for about 2 years, and contributions like this are his best. Almost all articles written by Ferdy Xu are nominated for deletion. I think this user either doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules or doesn't want to understand them at all. This user avoids communicating on the talk page, and deletes suggestions from other users on the talk page. And for Hu Zhean article, it fails BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : In cases like these, its better to just move the article to draftspace instead of soliciting a deletion discussion. If the author persists, then it could be sent to Afd. zoglophie^•talk• 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im just so sick with such contributions. That is why i brought it up to the AFD right away. Your suggestion is correct, i should move the article to draftspace. ThanksStvbastian (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I can understand the frustration, the lack of a lead sentence, lack of category are dead giveaways that there is a deficit in understanding what is needed in a new article JarrahTree 12:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After significant improvements from other users it looks now fine. Relevancy is also given. Florentyna (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don’t see anything wrong with the current version of the article.NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been well improved Sharontse121 (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it was profoundly rewritten and expanded with new sources. 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pandian Stores 2#Adaptations in the absence of a compelling reason to keep. ✗plicit 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhwanam 2

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

Probable failure of the notability guideline for films, but the more pressing concern is the amount of sockpuppetry this article has attracted. I didn't think it was appropriate to tag this under CSD G5, as a few other editors have worked on this, but at least two socks have edited this, and most of the rest comes from IP addresses that have edited the same articles as the socks and geolocate to the same city, suggesting block evasion. I also have concerns about the sources, many of which look like paid promotion disguised as news coverage, and a quick look for better ones did not reveal anything promising. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Kerala. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The IPs have removed the redirect three times now despite the three editors who disagreed so I guess here we are. Sad we have to be here over SOCKing. Judging notability outside of the editor conduct, it fails WP:NFILM as there is no significant coverage. Out of the 12 sources on the page, only one could possibly be used. The rest are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandian_Stores_2#Adaptations: of which this is an adaptation. Not opposed to Keep at all given the existing coverage. Opposed to deletion. Note: the page was accepted through the AfC process, for what it's worth. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Could you point to the sources you believe have the most significant coverage so we can better evaluate the subject's suitability under NFILM? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a film but a TV series, so, I don't mind you and other users judging it by NFILM standards, if you wish to do so (that could make sense, actually), but in general it's GNG that applies for TV series (WP:NTV being an essay, as I am sure you know, but just stating it for the record). Among bylined articles in English you have articles like https://www.news.keralatv.in/santhwanam-2-launch-date/ (and 5-6 similar articles by the same media outlet, in English) ; in Malayalam, also bylined, this kind of things (not great journalism) https://malayalam.oneindia.com/entertainment/santhwanam-2-asianet-released-a-new-promo-video-goes-viral-here-is-how-fans-reacted-461819.html https://malayalam.samayam.com/tv/celebrity-news/actress-gopika-anil-says-that-no-one-from-first-part-is-acting-in-the-santhwanam-2/amp_articleshow/110149785.cms seem to show this is popular enough. The content of The Times of India non-bylined articles might be challenged so I won't even mention it (but I suppose you had a look). I had redirected this myself at some point, I think (I seem to remember I did at least!), but that was challenged too, apparently. There are a lot of adaptations of the Tamil (5, 6 ?) original and their mentions are regularly removed from the tables, so for me, navigation-wise, as this seems quite popular and given the basic facts (including popularity) are verifiable with various sources, either R or K are good. Also, a detail, the fact that it's Santhwanam 2 but not a real sequel, as it has different characters, makes a redirect to the Santhwanam not the best option. For me a Keep would help the reader more efficiently but I understand the current coverage is not of extremely high quality, hence the suggested compromise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that NFILM doesn't apply — that was a silly error on my part! However, the same issue prevents the subject from meeting GNG, and the links you've shared here don't help in that regard, except maybe Samayam Malayalam. Looking at the about pages for OneIndia and Kerala TV shows that they have no editorial team, and the latter seems to be a blog run by one person. I think keeping would be out of reach here, but the target you've mentioned for a possible redirect sounds good to me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonna Akhperjanyan

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

Non-notable TV person. Nothing about her online in English, and the only trace of her online in Armenian is video clips of her as a chat show guest, not a host, with zero coverage in reliable sources. Article creator has been blocked for six months at Armenian Wikipedia for endlessly creating unsourced or barely sourced articles like this about obscure topics and ignoring warnings about it. This article, hy:Նոննա Ախպերջանյան, was speedied five times there A7. They've also been indeffed at Russian Wikipedia for the same thing, and indeffed at Commons for copyright abuse. Twenty minutes after this article was created, creating editor copied it to Draft:Nonna Akhperjanyan, probably because all of their articles get moved there. Borderline db-bio. Wikishovel (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Armenia. Wikishovel (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if reliable secondary sources are found. Demt1298 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator has been indefinitely blocked from article space. Wikishovel (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under A7 since notability is clearly lacking. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy has been declined so let this AFD continue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP's notability criteria per GNG nor NACTOR. BTW, not sure if it is relevant to mention this here, but there is a draft of this same article waiting in the wings at Draft:Nonna Akhperjanyan. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 19:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Resurrection

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

The article lacks WP:NOTABILITY, with only a single source provided which only briefly mentions the term. There seems to be no significant usage of this term in the scholarly community at all, with close to no scholars using this term. PadFoot (talk) 14:35, 25 September 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 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears there is are scholar and book resources that mentions this event, so it may be supported by WP:RS. (click Scholar/Book link at the top of this AfD). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two citations in scholar that mention such a term, one deals with paintings of early modern era India, and other deals with Vidarbha cotton, none of them are specialised histories regarding the subject. PadFoot (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. The first citation is cited incorrectly, never a good sign in an article. It doesn’t link to the first paragraph at all. Google Scholar throws up three publications using the phrase, and they’re all 2023 and 2024… so maybe it’s becoming more popular recently, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet. I’d love to know if there are Indian language sources using the equivalent phrase, which is translated here into English? But I don’t have the language skills to find out. So, on the one hand, the article as written doesn’t establish notability, but there seems to be sources out there which might… means I can’t decide between weak keep and weak delete, but tend towards weak delete unless someone steps in and finds some sources so we can be sure it’s not something the creator came up with himself through synth. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Britannica is okay but per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, secondary sources are preferable. If there’s only one secondary source shown, then for now I am okay with deleting the article, until notability is established. I can be persuaded from my vote if someone provides more sources using this term. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe merge) Notability for the term "Maratha Resurrection" is not an issue, as multiple articles discuss it in the context of Peshwa Madhav Rao, such as this [18]. If the historical facts are accurate, the term does not need specialized historical articles to validate its significance. A phenomenon's name can stand on its own merit, regardless of extensive historical analysis. Therefore, if the information presented is correct, I oppose deleting the article. Notability is notability; it is not solely defined by "specialized scholars." Scholars provide historical analysis, while any historical event can be labeled differently over time without distorting history, as long as the facts remain intact. If the historical facts here are wrong, then delete it. Otherwise-keep. Thanks.

DangalOh (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DangalOh, I think get what you mean to say here. The various battles mentioned in the article are notable, but the "Maratha resurrection" as a single event enveloping all these conflicts into a single one is not supported by many reliable sources. Such a term lacks notability and widespread usage in the scholarly community (see WP:HISTRS). A merger into another suitable article would be alright though. PadFoot (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it. If the series of events are absolutely unrelated and are being portrayed more like a synthesis, then it's a no. But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion. As logic suggests, WP:HISTRS is meant to establish or verify history. A term for a series of events (unless the events are entirely unrelated and someone is trying to make them seem connected) can be developed at any point in time. And yes, I do believe a standalone article is a bit too much. But I trust you—you will find a way to not completely remove this and find a good article (maybe the main one) to merge it into without compromising its integrity. The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I don't think there's enough scholarly sources that properly refer to a "Maratha resurrection". The scholar search up bit wasn't really much per Padfoot's explanation. Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been canvassed here. Noorullah21 Notice. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some sources. It is a significant evening. Other Indian kingdoms had thought Maratha empire was weakened a lot after the loss of Battle of Panipat on 1761, but Marathas regained territory up to Delhi in 1771 and Najibababad 1772 battle. That is very much notable. And also the exact term Maratha Resurrection was used in multiple sources. Though Marathas could not occupy up to Peshawar like before the Panipat battle, this was a significant territory away from their capital Poona. Crashed greek (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The added source (snippet) only includes a brief mention of the term, without providing any explanations of the term. I'm not sure whether you understand WP:NOTABILITY. A simple scholar search will show that there are close to zero sources that use term "Maratha resurrection", clearly depicting that the term lacks notability in the scholarly community. PadFoot (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There doesn't seem to be enough context or content for a standalone article, but it seems this could easily be merged into Maratha Empire as a sub-heading in the History section. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless I am missing something these individual talk page notices from the nominator (@PadFoot2008:) look like WP:CANVASSING. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Flemmish_Nietzsche previously !voted delete on one of the nominator's other AfD nominations and Noorullah just looks like someone the nominator knows.

Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst, sorry, I am new to AfDs, (this one is my first one). I wouldn't notify anyone else. So I can't notify people who often contribute to this field? PadFoot (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008: Always best to allow editors to find these through the projects- this AfD was posted in several. If you reach out to individuals it always has the appearance of bringing a like-minded editor to change consensus. I am sure others can explain better than I can. Also read the link WP:CANVASSING as it is nuanced. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst, Alright, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DangalOh's admission, But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion... The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. As and when scholars will start using this term, we will swiftly create this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not persuaded by these keep !votes but it would be best to get a clearer consensus in light of the (good faith, out of inexperience) canvassing here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linebet

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

Still think this should be an A7, can't be bothered reverting the removal though. All coverage is ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article creator & CSD remover have placed their case to retain the article on the AfD Talk page, although in rather non-specific phrasing. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text presents the company's license to trade and sponsorship deals, which fall under WP:CORPTRIV. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage, and, to be blunt, spam. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept as the company's importance has been confirmed in major media outlets in Bangladesh, South Africa and India, which attests to the fact that it is an international company. Ultimately, if these sources are not enough, I suggest adding the article to the WP:RSL Gordon Shane (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RioSul Shopping

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

No sources other than their own website. Appears to fail WP:ORG. Was going to look at the Portuguese Wiki for sources but it appears to have been deleted there. AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Companies, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been nominated before and even last time it appears there was consensus to delete but was kept for some reason. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Would also support a redirect to Rio Sul Center, an unrelated but similarly named mall in Brazil that is the tallest building in Rio. cyberdog958^Talk 14:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, which is required to demonstrate notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Moarnighar (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Soul source is primary. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Shehbaz Sharif. ✗plicit 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehbaz Speed

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

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 10:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shehbaz Sharif: This is PROMO. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shehbaz Sharif: Just a mention in article should be enough. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rostov-on-Don pre-trial detention center hostage crisis

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

Seems to fail WP:NEVENT, specifically the lasting part. I cannot find any continued coverage of this event in English, or any secondary source for that matter. It is possible some exists in Russian or under a name different to the title. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Russia. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep haven't done too deep of a dive (i guess more of a week keep, I'm pretty sure this is notable though) but with a quick search I found this article from only 4 days ago, reflecting on the consequences of the hostage taking. There's definitely more but this shows continued coverage and consequences for NEVENT PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per para, coverage seems sustained. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Zach (talk to me) 09:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badiul Alam

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

3sources, 2primary plus deadlink. main claim is a gold medal from American Biographical Institute, which is a paid for valueless vanity project according to ABI wikipage. otherwise non notable imo. lacks sigcov with a similarly named journalist dominating google. Canary757 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Canary757 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep The dead link has been repaired. The article still needs extensive clean up, offhand I would say to before the additions of COI editor Fahim-irfan-alam, but clean up doesn't require deletion. The main claim of notability is being the vice-chancellor of the University of Chittagong, which is a clear pass of the professor test criterion #6. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:PROF. Dead.rabbit (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF Cyanochic (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- mess of an article (I took out an unsubstantiated major claim), but Chittagong qualifies as a major university by the WP:PROF standards, and the highest academic post at places of that level qualify as Criterion 6. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Worldbruce. Mehedi Abedin 21:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady's Patriots Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

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

Rejected draft(after two declines) moved into the encyclopedia against advice. This event is not notable as a distinct event. Brady's achievements are written in the article about Brady. Poorly sourced, the sources provided just document the occurrence of the ceremony, no sources that discuss it in depth and show its importance. The legacy section is entirely unsourced. Clearly a piece written by a Patriots/Brady fan, which we shouldn't be able to tell. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Awards, Events, American football, and Massachusetts. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tom Brady. Not appropriate for a stand-alone article. I've searched and can't find another case where someone's induction into a hall of fame has its own stand-alone article -- not for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Baseball Hall of Fame, or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. This is serious overkill. Cbl62 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So, it's an important event where people spoke? That's rather routine for induction ceremonies... Nothing out of the ordinary happened, no criminal events happened (no attempted shooting, no mass casualty event). This doesn't seem notable. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm a big Brady fan, but there's nothing particular that sets this event apart from the numerous other routine induction ceremonies for team halls or number retirements. There's nothing to indicate there's going to be lasting coverage of this event, and there's nothing that stands out about this event that would make it anything other than routine. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that set this apart is that it was the first Hall of Fame induction ceremony to be held at a stadium (Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts). This was a once-in-a-lifetime event. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources that give coverage of that aspect? As noted above, we don't have standalone articles for induction ceremonies of other members of halls of fame(halls of far more prominence than a team HOF). It's usually covered in the article about the individual. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[19]Gillette Stadium Abhiramakella (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to find coverage from independent sources to back up your claim. Gillettestadium.com is most certainly not independent. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: New England Patriots website? Abhiramakella (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A press release from the Patriots is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every such ceremony is "once in a lifetime". 331dot (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's for a team hall of fame @Abhiramakella. The Lions for example always hold a ceremony for new inductions into their team ring of honor (the Pride of the Lions) anytime they induct someone into it. Matt Ryan was also just inducted during halftime of a game to the Atlanta Falcons Ring of Honor. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fail of WP:NEVENT: no lasting coverage with only routing reporting. Also sad to here josh is a Brady fan :( -1ctinus📝🗨 14:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus: I'm a fan of sports in general, and I LOVE seeing people at the peak of it. With that said... I still think Peyton Manning was a better QB who didn't have as good of a coaching staff ;) Brady however was more clutch in the playoffs, and will be recognized as the GOAT until Mahomes (hopefully) topples him! Also Matt Stafford will always be my boy and I'll always wear his jersey proudly :) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (oppose redirect). Player inductions into teams halls of fame are common events. Nothing in this particular event was so remarkable to warrant an article. Frank Anchor 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial event that lacks sustained coverage. The title as it currently stands is useless as a redirect because of the capitalization. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT and lacking WP:SIGCOV. I'll also point out that Brady's induction could have had a lot of pomp, but I didn't see anything in my social feed either. Conyo14 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:NEVENT. Left guide (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Venomous Concept as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 18:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cooke (musician)

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

Lots of passing mentions for the man and an interview but nothing else. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Venomous Concept, the one band for which he has been a consistent long-term member, and for which he is most often mentioned in the music media. Otherwise he is one of those pro working musicians who has filled in with various bands when needed and worked some session and solo projects, but remains little-covered in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources are about him directly, I think that covers WP:SIGCOV. Mewhen123 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mewhen123: What three sources are there. Can you point them out please. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stormark, Ella. "INTERVIEW: NAPALM DEATH'S JOHN COOKE". orangeamps. Retrieved 20 July 2024.
Rigs of Death Metal (16 November 2021). Rig talk with John Cook of Napalm Death. Retrieved 20 July 2024 – via YouTube.
Childers, Chad (4 October 2018). "Napalm Death's John Cooke on Journey From Driver to Guitarist". Loudwire. Retrieved 20 July 2024.
Loudwire (3 October 2018). Napalm Death's John Cooke Plays His Favorite Riffs. Retrieved 20 July 2024 – via YouTube.

Here they are, in fact there are four. Mewhen123 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can't establish notability as they are WP:PRIMARY and both non-social media websites. Social media can't be used in this manner to establish notability. Its not on. On the BLP policy page it states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". None of these are proper WP:SECONDARY sources that are needed for a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. As explained above, interviews are primary sources and therefore not appropriate sources for articles. Sandstein 18:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Seoul

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

Fails WP:ORG. One primary source. The history section is actually about relations with North Korea which should be in North Korea–Turkey relations. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Korea, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom LefterDalaka (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo Gulf Fertilisers

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

lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability and relevance in the context of Wikipedia. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. 2 sources on the page. One is dead link and the other is news coverage about clearance of the proposed acquisition of Indo Gulf Fertilizers by Indorama India Private Ltd. There are no sources with significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rajshahi Cantonment. Sandstein 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshahi Cantonment Board School And College

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

The article reliance on promotional content and local news also it does not fulfill WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 12:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rajshahi Cantonment (the location of the institution) where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. Inclusion in lists of various examination centers, a passing mention of the "a student of ..." sort, the school website, and indiscriminate databases are not the stuff that can demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lalmonirhat Cantonment. Sandstein 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College

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

The article lacks significant independent coverage and relies primarily on promotional material and local news sources. It fails to meet WP:GNG as there is absence of third-party references to substantiate its relevance. Nxcrypto Message 12:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lalmonirhat Cantonment (the location of the institution) where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. A job circular, indiscriminate lists/databases (List of Army School and College, Masters Admission, Sohopathi), a brief mention as winner in a primary school dance contest, and the school website do not add up to the significant coverage in independent sources that would establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College

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

Article lacks significant independent coverage and relies heavily on primary sources, primarily promotional material and local news. Without substantial third-party references, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 06:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Brazier

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

Senior executive positions at bluelinked companies preclude an A7, but I can find basically no coverage about the subject outside of routine announcements, certainly nothing with the requisite detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news search yields rather routine coverage. But nothing indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theater chains

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

Huge unsourced, unverifiable list of mostly non-notable cinemas/movie theatres. Tagged for lack of secondary sources for 12 years. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "a Simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 97 references. Category:Cinema and movie theatre chains by country shows plenty of valid entries for this list. Just needs a lot of pruning to remove anything without its own article or a reference. Dream Focus 07:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each reference is for each list entry, many non-notable. Where are the references discussing the subject as a group? AusLondonder (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the second paragraph at WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Not sure why some get confused by this. Dream Focus 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the lists for navigation purposes it states "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." I don't think that applies here. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonably notable topic for a list, that can be improved; added global/regional coverage (EL; LS). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for navigation purposes. Remove all the clutter (non notable entries). Ajf773 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Stove. There is disagreement over whether or not there is usable content in this article so I'm closing this as a Redirect. If editors are going to pursue a Merge, the content is still there in the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated stove

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

The article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Frost 05:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case has been made why sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claims like "the integrated design reduces gaps and corners" are unverified. Also, note the tone in the article, it's unencyclopedic. Frost 05:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Cortador (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no usable content in this article. Frost 07:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe a redirect to Stoves. There really isn't anything here that can be used. There are academic sources but they don't really add anything of real value to the article. If you google 集成灶 you'll get stoves. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably with Stoves but open to other suggestions. The problem is that the words in English mean different things. It appears that there is a level of consistency in China, but I don't have the ability to read local language sources to determine overall whether it has specific meaning there. But there is certainly use in other parts of the world which mean different things - for example whilst we are told that in China is means several different kitchen appliances in one unit, in other places it might just mean that individual appliances are "built in" to the overall kitchen design. I think at this stage the best option is to merge until it is clear that there is specific meaning shown in the third party sources. JMWt (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was my problem as well. What I think it means, and this is a guess, is that it's a stove that also has an integrated vent. At least that's what I see when I google "集成灶" and go to images. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stove: seems like the best option (or whatever the "Stoves" articles above refer to). I can't find anything that describes this at length. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GEMO (Skin Care Device)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The company website, press releases, and industry award web pages are not sources from which the notability of a product can be determined. —Alalch E. 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. —Alalch E. 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has considerable popularity in this niche market in China. [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuliusnanus (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Iuliusnanus (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Promotional content. As a paid editor, you should be especially discerning of promotional and unusable sources. I presume that you are paid to write articles that will be kept, not deleted. If you cannot distinguish between usable and unusable sources, the articles you create will be deleted, and your clients will not be satisfied. —Alalch E. 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the following source assessment:

Official website.
Extremely promotional news article.
Press release.
Some sort of design description written by this product's makers.
Extremely short description similar to above.
Another non-independent description of the product.

None of these meet the requirements of the GNG. The link added by Iuliusnanus above is sigcov (independence unclear), but one source alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. Toadspike [Talk] 18:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In my searches for sources and review of the sources in the article, I could find only unreliable sources, press releases, and reprints of press releases. GEMO does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria)

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

Article sounds more like a book than a Wikipedia article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is plainly notable. Some of the article needs to be rewritten and looks to me like a cooyvio anyway, though I can’t get the source to load. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hussein's reaction" section was translated directly from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20130612123908/https://www.algerie-ancienne.com/Salon/Galib/8France/01expedit/17staoueli.htm I also checked the "Early life" section but did not find copying there. Other sections may also have copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but it's unlikely the entire article has been copied or translated directly here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Christian Bale#Personal life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibi Blazic

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability outside of as actor Christian Bale's wife. Does not meet WP:BIO. KyleJoan^talk 05:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian_Bale#Personal_life: mentioned there; see nominator's rationale. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian_Bale#Personal_life.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karine Babajanyan

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

Lacks inline citations. Sources listed mostly lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - musician who has toured widely in major soprano roles. The article needs work, but it’s not so bad it needs to be Re-created from scratch. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lefkowith

AfDs for this article:

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

Lots of passing mentions for BLP. Potentially notable.Fails WP:SIGCOV.WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how being connected to India is a valid reason to delete. Please clarify. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I'm not sure really, three days ago. Ignore. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of good sources and no specific problems. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, good sources. Lib-trans-free (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tormach

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

Non-notable manufacturing company fails WP:NCORP. All the coverage available consists of press releases (WP:PRSOURCE), niche WP:TRADES publications not contributing to notability, and WP:ORGTRIV news -- there's no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS and thus no pass of NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added new references from different publications and sites about the company and its products. Please Review. Chiffre01 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a single independent, reliable, secondary source with WP:SIGCOV that counts toward WP:NCORP (Wired) and we need multiple. Most of these sources are WP:TRADES, which don't contribute to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of those CORP articles where it isn't clear if the article is about a product or the company, since they essentially are both called Tormach. I think there is plenty about the product (using current cite numbering): these are short but probably reliable - 2, 6, 9. These are long and presumably reliable: 7, 11. These could be useful for article content: 10, 12. As for WP:TRADES, I don't think we should toss out all trades articles - it looks like the source Design World is much broader than just the kinds of machine tools that this company makes; and Hackaday is even broader than that. Best 3? Wired, Design World, Hackaday. Lamona (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: The Aerospace Manufacturing and Design (2) is definitely a niche WP:TRADES publication, and the article itself is WP:ORGTRIV, routine coverage of new location(s). The Today's Medical Developments article (6) is a barely regurgitated press release from the company. The MakerWorks article (7) is a blog post by a company that services Tormach controllers and is not really secondary coverage. As for DesignWorld (11), it looks like a trade, but even if it's a broader publication, I don't think we can say it's reliable, since it has a supposedly bylined piece that is simply a verbatim reprinted press release from Tormach. You can find it in all sorts of other publications, virtually unaltered: [21], [22], [23], [24]. As for Hackaday, there are inconclusive RSN discussions on it (here, here); I would invite comments from @Graywalls, @Buidhe and @Slatersteven, independent participants in those discussions, on whether it's an appropriate source. The Wired article (9) I agree with you counts, but it's the only one that unambiguously counts toward WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MakerWorks does not claim to be wedded to Tormach, but claims to provide a wide variety of tools. I'm not sure what you mean by "service Tormach controllers". Yes, we can drop anything that has just copied a press release - thanks for finding that. However, I don't see the press release that is the copy for the DesignWorld piece - could you link to that? I couldn't find it on the Tormach site. Lamona (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona I don't see the press release on the Tormach website, but the identical text is posted on the sites I linked above, including this one where it is labeled a "press release", and this one where it is labeled "news from our sponsors". As for Maker Works, I may have misunderstood it, but it appears to be a blog from a local nonprofit maker space that has a Tormach mill. There is nothing here that suggests it is an editorially independent reliable source, particularly given the more stringent sourcing requirements of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some editing of the document, removing some of the press releases and adding some hacker/maker spaces that have information about their use. I feel like we need an analysis of the remaining sources, and I will try to get to that. Lamona (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an initial source assessment on what's currently in the article. I still don't see a WP:NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Industrial Machinery Digest	Written by Tormach. "At Tormach, our mission is and has always been to ‘empower people who make things’."			Written by Tormach
Aerospace Manufacturing and Design	WP:TRADES publication; of limited value for notability		WP:ORGTRIV, coverage of new location opening
The Robot Report	Sponsor content from Tormach. "Sponsored by Tormach" in lead sentence			Written by Tormach
AdvancedManufacturing.org	WP:TRADES publication; of limited value for notability	Unbylined feature; unclear whether sponsored or not
Today's Medical Developments	Regurgitated press release from Tormach (see example of same release published elsewhere)	Press release		Written by Tormach
MakerWorks Michigan blog		Blog published by nonprofit local makerspace with no evidence of editorial processes
Wired			Review of one of Tormach's products, not necessarily SIGCOV of company
Modern Machine Shop	WP:TRADES publication; of limited value for notability		Review of one of Tormach's products, not necessarily SIGCOV of company
Duke Innovation CoLab		Unknown editorial process	Limited discussion of Tormach as company or product. Most of this source is advice about how to use a CNC mill.
Dallas MakerSpace forum		Web forum; WP:USERGENERATED content
Hackaday		Inconclusive discussions at RSN here, here.	Mention of one of Tormach's products, not necessarily SIGCOV of company

Delete. I'm not really seeing anything beyond what's already in the source assessment table (other than brief name checks anyway), and I'd agree that the current souring is insufficient to retain. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati

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

The subject of this BLP does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, nor the WP:GNG. The article was drafted by someone who has a suspect COI but the author has been banned for sockpuppetry, notably for removing maintenance tags. An IP user on my talk page has acknowledged that there isn't even very much published information on the subject. Combined with my BEFORE, I'm not seeing anything that meets our notability requirements for this article that appears to be masquerading as an advertisement. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hinduism. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Psychology, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to add my voice in favor of keeping Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati’s page. Her influence spans across continents, and her teachings on Vedanta have touched the lives of so many people, myself included. While the page might need some edits (and we are working on that), the information is valuable and represents someone who is genuinely notable in the spiritual community. A lot of us are actively contributing to improve the page to meet Wikipedia’s standards, and removing it now would erase a key resource that many find helpful in discovering a true Vedanta guru. I hope this article can be preserved and refined, not deleted. [added this earlier in the talk section] 212.138.196.2 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable for her scholarly research in the field of psychology. She is at the forefront identifying similarities/dissimilarities between Western psychology and psychological principles and psychology inherent in classic Indian texts such as the Bhagavad Gita. Her soon to be published PhD dissertation addresses this topic in a unique way. A similar person who does have a Wikipedia page is Professor Rambachan. It is important for Wikipedia to present balanced opinions on major topics such as psychology.Leaving her page in place will allow for contrasting views and opinions from the dominant existing framework.Eoddleifson (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Eoddleifson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I respectfully oppose the deletion of this page for the following reasons:

Notability: Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati holds a significant position in the spiritual community and has made contributions that are noteworthy within her field. She is a respected figure in the Parampara, and her work, including published writings and teachings, is relevant to a wide audience. Her influence goes beyond individual students and impacts the larger community of spiritual seekers in India and internationally.

Presence of Reliable Sources: While the page may need further citations, there are multiple reliable sources that can validate her notability. These sources include books, publications, and notable mentions in relevant forums. Her contributions to spiritual teachings and involvement in community services have been acknowledged in respected publications. We will continue improving the citations to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines.

As an example, her work can be seen in comparison with other Swamis and Swaminis in the Parampara who have established Wikipedia pages (e.g., Swamini Atmaprajnananda Saraswati).

Additionally, published materials such as her books and teachings, and references to her in newspapers and online platforms, validate her presence and importance in the field of spiritual education.

Ongoing Efforts to Improve the Page: The page has already been edited to align with Wikipedia's guidelines, including improvements made to ensure neutrality and adherence to notability criteria. We are open to further editing to meet any specific concerns raised by editors. This includes adding more reliable secondary sources and ensuring that the content follows a neutral point of view.

I request that this page be given more time for improvements and not be deleted hastily. I believe that with the support of the community, we can ensure that this page meets Wikipedia’s standards. 50.245.102.135 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments actually based in policy would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, strongly vote to keep the page. On the notability criterion

a. She has additions to research on psychology and Vedanta. Her papers are are published in various offline and online journals. Link - https://www.academia.edu/38993865

b. Her authored and published book on Vedanta has helped multiple students/seekers with raving reviews. Book link - https://amzn.in/d/5V1rdGC

c. She recently was honoured with a doctorate degree (PhD) and her study research thesis is up for publication into a book.

d. She was recently invited by Rick Archer as well for a freewheeling conversation at the acclaimed BATGAP podcast where only select spirituality awakened people are invited. Link - https://youtube.com/watch?v=pgVMzyIpVfQ

Strongly advise to keep the page for many people who benefit from her works. 2.48.241.175 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find anything in Gscholar, this person doesn't pass academic notability. There are some mentions in GBooks by they talk about the teachings than about the individual... The only green source per Source Highlighter is 16 in the Hindu. Beyond that, there isn't much left for sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dera Ghazi Khan bus-truck collision

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

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. While this incident was unfortunate, road accidents are quite common in Pakistan as stated at Traffic collisions in Pakistan, and this one does not appear significant enough to warrant a standalone article. It clearly fails to meet the NEVENT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 30 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, So we’re just going to keep articles based on WP:BIAS even if they don’t meet GNG? Sounds like a solid plan! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we should also keep them per WP:COMMONSENSE, which is a very good plan! Dogma is rarely the best way forwards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necrothesp, Sorry, but if we start keeping articles based on WP:COMMONSENSE, we’ll be setting a bad precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pfah, common sense, eh! What use is that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, there aren't that many of this nature that happen in the US or the UK. Perhaps they have better safety standards? We had a bus accident in Canada a few years ago that killed most members of a junior hockey team. Since then, they've made changes to laws, requiring seat belts on them. The driver of the vehicle that hit the bus was still in the news recently facing deportation... This is the kind of continued coverage we're looking for, helps to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A traffic accident more than 2 yrs ago, with three sources and barely two lines of text, doesn't seem this has gained much traction in the years since. I can only see routine mentions of the accident, and nothing since. It's not biased to want to delete an article when local media don't even cover the event 3 years later. Nothing significant came of it (no changes in laws, court cases), while tragic, it's not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sad event but doesn't justify its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Myong-song

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Kyong-won (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea where he is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no support for deletion. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 00:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Milton tornado outbreak

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

~~WP:TOOSOON. Also, article is extremely basic and has dubious facts. With the facts right now, it is too soon to split. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Florida. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article already draftified. I'd suggest just withdrawing this. Sir MemeGod  00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several actions were preformed at a similar time as this nomination. Withdrawing. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Memories

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

This subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Cfls (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Zhu, Jianhua 朱建华 (2023-10-19). "清华教授用AI创作的科幻作品，参赛并获奖" [Tsinghua Professor's AI-Created Sci-Fi Work Competes and Wins an Award]. Wuhan Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "前后对话66次，清华大学新闻与传播学院教授沈阳利用AI平台创作的科幻作品《机忆之地》（参评时署名“@硅禅”），在第五届江苏省青年科普科幻作品大赛评选中获评二等奖。10月18日中午，本报记者联系上江苏省科普作家协会科幻专委会主任付昌义，他表示，在他的印象中，之前还没有利用AI创作的科幻作品参加比赛并获奖，这是第一次。"
  From Google Translate: "After 66 exchanges of dialogue, Professor Shen Yang from Tsinghua University's School of Journalism and Communication used an AI platform to create the sci-fi work 'Memory Land' (submitted under the name ‘@Silicon Zen’), which won second prize in the fifth Jiangsu Province Youth Science Popularization and Sci-Fi Work Competition. On the afternoon of 18 October, our reporter contacted Fu Changyi, the director of the Sci-Fi Committee of the Jiangsu Provincial Association of Science Writers. He stated that, to his knowledge, this is the first time a sci-fi work created using AI has participated in a competition and won an award."
2. Shen, Zhao 沈昭 (2023-10-22). "AI作家@硅禅的科幻小说得奖了它是怎么写出的获奖作品《机忆之地》？" [AI writer @ Silicon Zen’s science fiction novel won an award. How did it write the award-winning work "The Place of Memories"?]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "《机忆之地》是清华大学沈阳教授团队使用AICG（人工智能创意生成）创作而成的，小说的标题、配图等内容均由AI生成，在最初提交的时候并没有特意标注出自人工智能之手，和其他人类作者的作品经过层层筛选送到了六位终审评委的面前。这篇小说讲述了一名元宇宙探险家李晓寻找记忆的故事，李晓曾经是一名神经工程师，在一次实验中失去了关于家人的记忆，她对“机忆之地”的传说有了浓厚的兴趣，希望借此找回自己遗失的记忆。"
  From Google Translate: ""The Land of Machine Memories" was created by a team of professors from Shenyang, Tsinghua University, using AICG (artificial intelligence creative generation). The title, illustrations and other content of the novel were all generated by AI. When it was initially submitted, it was not specifically marked as being produced by artificial intelligence. The works of other human authors were screened and sent to the six final judges. This novel tells the story of Li Xiao, a metaverse explorer who searches for memories. Li Xiao was once a neuroengineer who lost the memory of her family during an experiment. She became familiar with the legend of the "Land of Machine Memories". I have a strong interest in it, hoping to retrieve my lost memory."
3. Wang, Tingsu 王亭苏 (2023-10-24). He, Rui 何睿 (ed.). "AI小说获科幻奖，人工智能时代文学如何自处？" [AI novel wins science fiction award. How should literature fare in the era of artificial intelligence?]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10 – via Sohu.
  The article notes: "据报道，一本名为《机忆之地》的小说，于近日在江苏青年科普科幻作品大赛中获得了二等奖。随后，清华大学新闻学院教授沈阳在其个人社交账号上发布消息，称这篇小说从笔名、标题、正文到配图，“100%的内容都是AI写的”。"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, a novel titled "The Land of Machine Memories" recently won the second prize in the Jiangsu Youth Popular Science Science Fiction Competition. Subsequently, Shen Yang, a professor at the School of Journalism at Tsinghua University, posted on his personal social account that "100% of the content of this novel was written by AI" from the pen name, title, text to illustrations."
4. Lalonde, Catherine (2024-01-08). "A literary prize for an artificial writer". Le Devoir. Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "“At the edge of the metaverse lies the Land of Memories, a forbidden realm from which humans are excluded.” So begins The Land of Memories , a prize-winning short story at the fifth Jiangsu Science Fiction Literary Competition. The text was generated by Shen Yang, professor emeritus at the School of Journalism at Tsinghua University in Beijing, using artificial intelligence (AI). ... Mr. Shen worked with the AI for three hours, giving it 66 commands, to get a rough draft of 43,000 characters. The professor then cut, sculpted and refined this first draft, to arrive at a manuscript of some 6,000 Chinese characters, Land of Memories ( also translated by some media as Land of Machine Memory )."
5. Chik, Holly (2023-12-20). "A Chinese professor used AI to write a science fiction novel. Then it was a winner in a national competition". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-12-22. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "When a professor at Beijing’s Tsinghua University set out to write a science fiction novel about the metaverse and humanoid robots, he turned to artificial intelligence for inspiration. The AI ended up generating his entire book – which then took out a national science fiction award honour. The nearly 6,000-character Chinese-language novel Land of Memories, by Shen Yang, a professor at the university’s school of journalism and communication, was among the winners of the Jiangsu Youth Popular Science Science Fiction Competition, Jinan Times, a newspaper in Shandong province reported. ... The story centres on a metaverse explorer named Li Xiao, who used to be a neural engineer in the real world. After accidentally losing all memories of her family during an experiment, she becomes interested in the legend of the Land of Memories, and hopes that her lost memories can be retrieved in the metaverse."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Land of Memories (simplified Chinese: 机忆之地; traditional Chinese: 機憶之地) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Piotrus (talk · contribs), who created the article but was not notified of the AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That might warrant a procedural keep, but certainly it warrants regular one given sources you found. So, anyway, Keep for me, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. First time making a deletion of article proposal. Not too familiar with the procedure. Thanks for reminding. Cfls (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The novel has received sufficient news coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Devoir and South China Morning Post reviews are solid, unsure about the reliability of the Chinese sources, but put together, it should pass notability for literary works. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For a book or novel it is very short, almost the length of a long essay. Vacosea (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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