Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 19	September 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT Journalism Awards

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

There is no independent WP:SIGCOV for this niche regional industry awards program. All of the coverage is either on the award program's own site, or it's in news outlets touting their own journalists' wins and nominations and thus not independent. A handful of WP:TRADES coverage items as well but that doesn't contribute to notability and thus this subject fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, Technology, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit today - it does get quite good coverage in mainstream media, has been running for 21 years, has quite a lot of incoming links, and IMO passes GNG now, if it didn't before. Gaming is also another topic which probably receives less coverage in WP than its popularity would suggest (and one I know little about), and these awards are highly prized in that industry. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources have you added that you think are independent and reliable? They’re still mainstream sources talking about their own wins in the awards (and thus not independent), self published sources (not reliable) or trade publications (not independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a lot of sources but some are used merely to confirm sponsors. Other sources confirm individual winners without being significant coverage of the actual awards. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that awards fall under WP:SNG anyway, and the sources are Independent of the subject per the definition - "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". They are in mainstream media that are not affiliated with the award. In addition, there is a significant number of incoming links, and the awards are significant to Australian IT journalists. I really don't see the point of deleting something that is serving a useful purpose of describing these awards. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What SNG are you referring to? WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal and not binding. WP:GNG is the binding guideline. To answer your points, the mainstream sources are literally about the media organization itself receiving an award. It is definitionally not independent coverage of the awards; it's promotional. Meanwhile, your last two sentences have no bearing on P&Gs related to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just looked at half a dozen other awards under the Australian journalism awards category, and all of those had much fewer citations (if any) fulfilling the criteria - so by the argument above, they should all be deleted - not that I am advocating for this, but rather to strengthen the argument of awards being in a specialist notability class of article, for which perhaps new guidelines need writing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are poor to unreliable. Nothing independent here. Page needs secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and I do not find that on this page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the consensus is to delete this one, then there will be dozens more old awards articles which fail these criteria, based on the lot I looked at - citing is inadequate across the board, and this one is better than most (excluding major showbiz ones, which of course get covered extensively). I'm talking about a principle here, not a single article. Are there any editors here who belong to the Awards project who can address this as a larger issue? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep (unless those other subjects have been kept in AfD discussions that have established some kind of precedent). The mere existence of the articles does not establish a precedent that those articles should exist. That there are articles on other non-notable topics is not a reason to keep this article on a non-notable topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing keeping this one on the principle of precedence, I'm suggesting that there needs to be a discussion on what makes awards articles worthwhile for keeping in general, in terms of usefulness to our users. I think that current GNG guidelines may not be fit for purpose when applied to awards. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question for the Village Pump, not a question we can resolve in this deletion discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 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. Several of the arguments here, on both sides, lack basis in P&G. In the end, biased content can be cleaned up, but the fundamental issue of failing WP:LASTING has not been adequately refuted. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Bangladesh-India border clash

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

The description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy expected in a balanced historical record. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any lasting coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh, bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16[1], others April 17[2], and some April 18[3]. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Wikipedia. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Absurdum4242 Welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time. Nxcrypto Message 11:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As far as I can tell, the only way to get the experience is to actually do the work to get it, which is what I’m trying to do here. If we are all working in good faith (which I assume we are), statements of fact such as “the articles are confused about dates” should be reasonably easily proven or disproven simply by reading the articles in question, and without a deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies (which I am never the less trying to gain). Then it’s just a matter of clearly articulating what we think - which I hope I have done, in service of moving towards consensus. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This happens regularly and is nothing surprising. WP:GNG has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis.[4] The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless. Azuredivay (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggestion that different source articles are confused about the dates / give different dates seems to be based on a confusion between the dates the articles were published, and the dates the events themselves were said to have occurred. The sources seem both independent and robust, are numerous, include both local and international news publications (including BBC and Al Jazera), and give details which are consistent between the different articles. The wiki page itself could use some editing for clarity / grammar / neutrality etc, but this does not warrant deletion, it should be edited instead (and I’ll have a go at that tomorrow if I have time).

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement - There is another clash in the same year in August 2005, During the Bangladesh Nationalist Party's Government, When Indian troops opened fire, We should add that to the page, It has many sources. the argument above by Absurdum4242 appears to be correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources could establish WP:GNG. Agletarang (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong - Okay, Can you please clarify and tell how it does not establish WP:GNG? Keeping is a better option. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Keep. I totally disagree with the above arguments, it meets General Notability Guidelines. There're independent sources added, and perhaps worth reconsidering. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 12:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until I see a couple of reliable sources that establish WP:LASTING coverage, my vote is to delete this article. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, What do you even define as reliable sources? Have you even read the page? According to your logic, Al Jazeera and BBC News are unreliable and also other sources, You are very incorrect, @Captain AmericanBurger1775, I suggest keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Captain AmericanBurger1775, It's also not a logical vote, Since the person voting for deletion was warned several times for saying cuss words without becoming more mature later on, and apologising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Sir MemeGod  19:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? - Do you even know about the nomination? And, check the page Again, If this AfD goes successful for deletion just because of votes, It would be a violation of the Administrator Instructions in the edit notice.

This comment is by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Wikipedia. You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not challenge every editor who has a different opinion from your own. It's called bludgeoning a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and it is true, A lot of them have not done it in Good Faith. Liz. Ok sure, I will not challenge every editor. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Delete Absurdum4242 is correct that NXcrypto's original rationale for deletion is flawed. Being one-sided or containing discrepancies is not a good reason to delete.

What Absurdum4242 and Tanbiruzzaman don't address, however, is that although there are multiple, independent, reliable sources, except for the India Today retrospective from a couple of weeks after the fact, and the one sentence in The Daily Observer, all are primary source news accounts of the April (Dawn, Australian Broadcasting Corp, bdnews24, Al Jazeera 2) or August (VOA, Al Jazeera 1, BBC) clashes. WP:GNG says notable topics are those that have received "significant attention ... over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia."

Lorstaking and Captain AmericanBurger1775 are correct that there is no coverage that shows a lasting effect. The event was nearly 20 years ago. If historians believed it was significant, they would have written something about it by now, and they haven't. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article should not be kept. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Well Not Really, How would you know that they think it is significant or not? Also, you cannot just say that they would have written something about it by now, That is a person's choice if they want to write about it or not regardless of it being significant, My argument might have some issues, If so, Please reply. Also, What do you define as significant coverage and lasting effect? I am not asking for the community's answer, I am asking for your answer. As what do you think is significant coverage and lasting effects. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage those who have !voted keep to consider changing their recommendations, and those who have given only brief delete reasons to consider elaborating to show a clearer consensus. The no WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS problem is one that comes up fairly regularly, such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 As-Suwayda clashes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan-India border clash, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish. Author BangladeshiEditorInSylhet should be familiar with the reason for deletion since two of those are his creations. His 1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes and 2019 Bangladesh-Indian border clash should be examined too. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the 2 pages I created back then were not meeting with WP:N. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page about the clash between East Pakistan and India and the one with Bangladesh and Myanmar. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still active. Remember, your arguments should be grounded in policy and your assessment about whether or not the sources in the article, that have been bought into the discussion or that you have found, are sufficient to provide SIGCOV and establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any lasting coverage either. Dympies (talk) 04:03, 28 September 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 Tengrism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yer-sub

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

Although there are some sources such as http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/64/14_Yerzhanova%20et%20al.pdf I am not sure there are enough to show notability for a stand-alone article. As an alternative to deletion maybe merge into Tengriism? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, Central Asia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : per nom.--Gabriel (……?) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tengriism is a Redirect, not an appropriate Merge target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you right. Gabriel (……?) 05:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 I don’t know the subject so you should say whether merging to Tengrism is suitable as I don’t really know merge or delete which is better? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tengrism - the current stub has one external link, which is tantamount to original research. This is not exclusionary of either a merger or later Re-creation. Dicta: This religion or belief system is quite ancient, and is linguistically interesting, because it might point to a larger language family in Asia. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 25 September 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 Üçköprü, Kaynaşlı. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Üçköprü

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

This confluence is not significant in itself as the river is small - no objection to merging into the river article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Üçköprü, Kaynaşlı. There's no sourcing and thus no evidence that this confluence (which is unlikely to be notable; how often is the spot where two small rivers join known by its own name?) is even known by this name. However, the term is a valid search term for an unrelated town with the same name in Turkey so should be redirected. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 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!} 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor incident, gear collapses are common, also no major injuries or fatalities that add notability to it. Very few sources cover it, and the article is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. A search yields no news coverage, no significant coverage, no in-depth coverage and no secondary sources. Perhaps the fact that it did result in some lasting effects could make it notable, as noted in the article, but other than that, it practically fails every other policy and guideline as noted above and I don't think this would justify a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as secondary sources are scarce and no news coverage, not meeting WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT. Though not the primary standard for notability, it also resulted in no casualties. Pygos (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Patriot Party

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to satisfy NCORP or GNG. Coverage appears limited to a few mentions during election coverage. – notwally (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never ran candidates, no significant coverage, fails GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has no encyclopedic significance as it did not have members or won any electoral contest. Piscili (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Non registered party. Nothing notable about the party or its founder. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely and utterly non-notable. Not close to passing WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other commenters, fails any notability guideline you could throw at it. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Democrats Party

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any significant coverage of this political party after a search for sources. The only cited source in the article is a single sentence mention from 2011. All other coverage appears to be related to election coverage. Similar to how political candidates are not notable purely because they are candidates, this party does not seem notable as they only had a few candidates (the page is even confused whether the founder was a candidate "two or three times"), and appear to have gotten very few votes in those elections, with no coverage to pass NCORP or GNG. – notwally (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:NORG. There is no record of the party wining any election in its entire life. Piscili (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The party is not notable, but since he was involved in running it, the content should be merged into the Kyle Chapman article. Schwede 66 20:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect/Merge~~ with Kyle Chapman as per Schwede's comment. Maybe just a brief mention of it there and that he was involved is all this needs. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sourced content in the article is mentioned already in Chapman's article. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right you are, I had missed that when I skimread his article. Then I will simply change my vote to Delete. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:18, 22 September 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!} 23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ban 1080 Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I initially redirected to 1080 usage in New Zealand where it is mentioned but this was reverted. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - article is well-sourced and easily passes GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clear or speedy keep because it has tons of media sources that meet WP:GNG. Though there is no record of winning election it ran in several electoral contests and received some votes. Piscili (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the arguments already put forward, there has been a longstanding agreement that parties that achieve registration are considered notable. Schwede 66 21:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP includes political parties and the idea that registered parties no longer holds consensus, especially given how trivial registration is in NZ.

The article sources are all primary and constitute routine coverage of politics. The only coverage that doesn't relate to the election is just about the police investigating them but ultimately being found completely innocent/unrelated. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly not agreement that all political parties are inherently notable. That assertion is in fact directly contrary to policy, WP:ORGSIG which states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." WP:NCORP explicitly applies to political parties: "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties..." AusLondonder (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - this quote comes from the introduction to NCORP (which also shortcuts as NORG, among others) and appearing under the title Notability (organizations and companies). We have long distinguished for-profit and not-for-profit organisations (Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations), allowing for modified criteria for the latter. While I agree that registration alone cannot count for notability, we do distinguish between political parties and corporations. In terms of notability, a business with 1,000 customers is inherently different than a political party with 1,000 members. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Party was registered to contest two general elections. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? AusLondonder (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it meets the notability requirements and is backed up by reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the purposes of political parties I think WP:NONPROFIT is a more apppropriate guideline. Nevertheless, passes the WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly this meets notability guidelines from the number of sources. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the 17 sources, at least 9 are primary: electoral records, and press releases from the party. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary sources are there to substantiate facts. Its the secondary sources which provide notability. And there's no shortage of them. IdiotSavant (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the article appear to be secondary and no additional sources have been shown in this AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Dent

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding the needed coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Agree with WP:TOOSOON here. Let'srun (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:13, 23 September 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. I don't see a consensus here and I don't think additional relistings will lead us to a firm consensus so I'll just close this now. There is a fundamental disagreement on the quality of the sources brought to the discussion but I am hoping they get included into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Steinbachek

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

All reliable standalone coverage on the page is about the subject's death, the only other reliable source is about a song that the subject's group made, while the rest are WP:NOTRS sources like IMDB and music fan sites. Pretty clear failure of WP:NMUSICBIO. Should be redirected to Bronski Beat. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar independent notability issues. All standalone coverage of Bronski is in obituaries, while the only other sources presented are an article about his band, an unreliable fansite, and an interview which is a primary source. No independent notability here either, and should similarly be redirected to Bronski Beat because of the notability issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both received significant independent coverage in a number of major news and music news outlets. The idea that an obituary written about a person is "about his death" rather than a celebration of his life seems a bit over the top. I don't know of any guideline or consensus that a non-paid obituary is not counted for notability. It's not just those two either:

I could see an argument WP:BANDMEMBER applies here although with a band this influential I'd put my thumb on the scale for Steinbachek for other things like LGBTQ activism and film scoring. Steve Bronski is even more notable than Steinbachek because he wrote Smalltown Boy. Oblivy (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree and I very much believe WP:BANDMEMBER applies. I'll admit that maybe saying that the obituaries are about their deaths rather than celebrations of their lives was unduly harsh, but the pieces objectively only exist because their subjects passed away. I'm not finding virtually anything in reliable sourcing regarding Steinbachek's activism or film score work, and Bronski does not inherit notability from being one of three co-writers on a song that was a top 3 hit in the U.K. and a top 50 hit in the U.S. If you want to find sources that solely focus on the subjects that that meet WP:V and WP:RS and add them to the article, go for it -- I might even walk this back if you can find enough, but for now outside of their passings I just don't think there's enough coverage of either of them for their standalone articles to quite meet WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that major news-outlet obituaries "only exist because their subjects pass away" is more than a wee bit reductive. Yes, they are occasioned by the death, but they are written because the person was notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an obituary was published by a reliable source does not automatically make the subject independently notable by Wikipedia standards -- to prove my point, I will direct you to two deletion discussions about deceased musicians, WP:Articles for deletion/Koopsta Knicca and WP:Articles for deletion/Lil Phat, both from this year (the former actually started by me, not entirely coincidentally). In both cases, despite there being tributes written by sources that pass WP:RS (including here and here, respectively), there was consensus at both discussions that there was not enough coverage of these artists for the purposes of standalone articles outside of their deaths, with the former article being redirected to the notable group he was a member of, and the latter being redirected to a U.S. top 10 hit he appeared on and had a co-writing credit for. Personally, I feel that Steinbachek and Bronski are in the exact same boat, more or less -- just because they were members of an unquestionably notable group whose music charted and went platinum in various nations does not mean they individually pass WP:NMUSICBIO, since notability is not inherited and outside of them dying the sourcing in both articles does not appear to establish it outside of the context of the group. I'm not trying to persuade you to change your vote or anything, but I really don't see enough in either article that couldn't just be included in the Bronski Beat article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, nothing to prevent a band member from being notable despite not meeting the criteria set forward at WP:BANDMEMBER. I wasn't suggesting an obituary means a person meets WP:N, but at the same time an obituary is certainly an opportunity taken by the press to significantly cover someone's life and there is generally ZERO relationship between the notability of their death and the notability of their life. Oblivy (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Bronski Beat. I don't see sufficient justification for standalone articles, but detail on the band members should be included there. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both articles to Bronski Beat. Best solution here, that also retains the information. ResonantDis_tortion 09:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - not merely a band member, he co-wrote one of the most iconic songs of the 1980s, for which books and episodes of music history have been published. That alone is reason enough, but as shown by simple WP:BEFORE searches, there’s clearly sufficient sources for significant coverage. His music has been called “landmark” by The Independent, an “anthem of gay culture resonates 40 years on … the haunting classic” according to The Guardian, Spin magazine focused on his individuality in their breakout cover story, and the Financial Times called his song a “hit was a heartfelt cry for liberation.” Scholars are still writing about the subject’s role in writing this song decades later. Beyond that song, he co-wrote a song for Divine, his work post-Somerville is discussed in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, another book about chart-toppers, and in a book about Donna Sommer, all which I found with a few clicks. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which band member are you talking about? I ask, given that I have nominated two articles here and you don't specify who "he" refers to here. Though I'll admit that a good amount of the sourcing you've provided is pretty impressive, I'd recommend citing them within the article itself too. But as for you talking about co-writing an iconic '80s track and roles within the group, please see WP:INHERIT and WP:BANDMEMBER per the above back-and-forth. The last couple of sources you cite certainly contribute to independent notability, but the Independent and Guardian articles are about the song, so while they are from reliable sources and usable on the article, I don't think they contribute to notability for either band member since they're about the song and group, regardless of the individuals who contributed to either. You have found some good sourcing from those books though, so I might loosen up my position a little based on those. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above by Bearian including reliable books and academic papers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion or merge is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus on this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bearian has provided excellent sources that can be used in the article, after which it will almost certainly meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I don't think merging with Bronski Beat is the answer, because his career encompasses more than that.DesiMoore (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the above sources - I just don't see it and I do not agree with the keeps (as it currently stands). The sources indicate that the subjects of this AfD are absolutely notable in the wider frame, but it is 99% all in the context of the proposed target - the works of the band itself - Bronski Beat. Outside the context of Bronski Beat - there is very little. I can't help thinking the wikipedia readership is best served by a single comprehensive article - which is the proposed merge target. (Usual caveats apply - if further evidence is identified please do ping me). ResonantDis_tortion 21:54, 21 September 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. Although some editors opposed this option, I'm closing this discussion as a Draftify as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Moore (footballer, born 2003)

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. No significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. Giant Snowman 20:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this page is not "pretty much match reports and stats sites"!

Please check the sources and READ the article as well as sources before making false statements about another one of my pages EnglishDude98 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is made up of one more type of source: primary sources. In general that means sources created by himself, his family, his employer or his association - in this case, all news published by his own club are primary. They can be used, but do not provide notability for a subject. Geschichte (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - where is the significant coverage? The fact that @EnglishDude98: does not understand notability requirements remains concerning. Giant Snowman 06:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article shouldn't have been Prod'ed in the first place, because there are multiple citations in play, all-be-it mostly primary, makes it not an article you can PROD. There are some secondary sources on there, but many people call them routine coverage. @EnglishDude98: I suggest you read through WP:V and try and find those sources which users today would call WP:SIGCOV. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will check later, thanks for the help and advice in this matter @Govvy EnglishDude98 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does an article having multiple sources mean you can't PROD it? Giant Snowman 14:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between complicated and uncomplicated, a page with multiple sources will always be challenged, 90% of admins will reject a prod like that. Prod is for straight forward simple deletions. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is for an uncontroversial deletion, which is not the same thing at all. Giant Snowman 15:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing even close to approaching IRS SIGCOV, and there is no point in draftifying something that has no hope of sourcing appearing in the near future. The current page has 15 citations to his club/league (not independent and not secondary), 6 citations to stats pages (not secondary, not SIGCOV), and 4 citations to utterly routine match reports, none of which contain even a sentence on Moore. JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay statement. Footballer with a very common birth name, making it difficult to find significant coverage for this one. I don't see this article as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I am going to say draft with the hope that he could come notable, he is only 20 years old, I don't see why it can't be worked on in draft space. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement on whether or not this article should be draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I don't see a current pass on WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT, but he's an early career player and I see no reason to draftify in the event sources emerge in the near future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 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!} 23:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarettes and Valentines

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

To start things off, I want to make it clear this nomination is not about notability. I have zero doubts that Cigarettes and Valentines might meet the general notability guidelines, which would be hard to establish since most of the sourcing is interviews anyways, but I digress. Rather, my concern is the significant overlap between this and American Idiot. Because at the end of the day, that is what Cigarettes and Valentines boils down to, a failed project that came before American Idiot, and all sources available reflect this (including the ones I searched for prior to this). The project is only discussed within the context of American Idiot's production. There's not really anything worth discussing about Cigarettes and Valentines that isn't (or at least, can be) discussed in the covered in the American Idiot article. There's also a problem related to how we do not know, nor may we ever know, what Cigarettes and Valentine's was going to be, or what it had. Based on that, I think that even if all statements in this article were cited to reliable sources (which, at present, they are not), it runs the risk of coming off as spreading rumors, or in others terms original research or sourcing synth. Because of these reasons, I believe that Cigarettes and Valentines fails NOPAGE, and should be redirected to the American Idiot article.

As for the song, I highly doubt that it is independently notable from Awesome as Fuck based on the present sourcing, as it only discusses this one specific performance of the song, and nothing beyond that. And combining this album and this song into one article to try and make something worthwhile comes off as a coatrack. λ NegativeMP1 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. λ NegativeMP1 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am usually not a fan of articles on albums that were never released, which tend to be full of obsessive fan trivia. However, this album is different because it was nearly complete and had even been announced as coming soon before the master tapes were stolen. Also, Cigarettes and Valentines is not simply an early version of American Idiot because only one full song and a few titles made the transition. So this unreleased album has its own history and identity as a stand-alone item. I'm at "Weak Keep" because everything could possibly be described as a historical episode in the band's article, but there is probably enough coverage to support an album article too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept. Cigarettes and Valentines is an individual album, it's not just an early version of American Idiot. There's enough info on it to justify its own page, I don't see a reason to delete it. 76.191.57.254 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in any AfD discussions so far and I'm not knowledgeable about Green Day, but the article looks pretty informative in its current form and I would almost bet on the album eventually getting released at some point in the future (just look at the many unreleased Neil Young albums that were eventually released). Plus, several sources do seem to focus on the unreleased album, not just as backstory to American Idiot. So although it's likely I'm missing something (due to being not very acquainted with WP intricacies) I'm going with Keep. Jules TH 16 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 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 Heroes, Inc. Presents Cannon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon (comics)

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

Barely one legit entry, if that. No mention of Cannon in WildStorm article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Disambiguations, and Lists. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cannon (disambiguation)#Other arts and entertainment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's only one comics entry there (the semi-valid entry here), why not redirect to that article directly? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heroes, Inc. Presents Cannon. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heroes, Inc. Presents Cannon. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heroes, Inc. Presents Cannon. I don't think redirecting to the disambiguation page is a good option. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Trading Company, Inc.

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. No good sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve : Seeing the sources listed not sure where the subject is notable. Better to incubate in draftspace.Nirmalburlakoti (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment could be considered for deletion if it lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources that establish its notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. If the content primarily consists of promotional material or fails to demonstrate significant industry coverage --Moarnighar (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding any immediate SIGCOV sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. They apparently do business as E-FUTURES dot COM, and E-MINI dot COM[5] (which use annoyingly generic terms), in which case there may be reliable independent reviews somewhere to meet WP:NPRODUCT -- but it's likely not for us to do that level of digging). The sources in there with the exception of the Trader Planet award are either not independent or trivial, and the award is not sufficiently notable (and voting is definitely not properly selective). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is either primary source/non-independent, or it is WP:ORGTRIV. Don't see anything to get it across WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 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. I see a consensus here to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brown (businessman)

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

Fails WP:GNG since coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Not sure if the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Jersey. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject would be considered notable. If citations are not done correctly, please let me know but notability is not a question. I personally like to focus on notable individuals and landmarks based in the DC region. The subject would be considered notable in business based in the DC Region.

I bring up the following regarding notability:

-the individual was published by JP Morgan Chase (has a wiki) for being a top producer, producing over half a billion in loans in 5 years. That number being produced by a single individual would not only make the individual top producer at JP Morgan Chase, but a top producer across any company in finance. With inflation, that would mean the money generated then would be over 800 million today. That number being produced today by one person would be unheard of in finance.

-the individual is seen in a photo being awarded by Charles Scharf (has a wiki) the current CEO and President of Wells Fargo (has a wiki). Wells Fargo and the CEO of Wells Fargo are again notable individuals. There are not many photos of non-notable individuals being awarded or seen with the current CEO of Wells Fargo

-the individual sits on the executive board of a nonprofit owned and ran by a notable WNBA (has a wiki) legend, Sonia Chase (has a wiki).

Regarding Citations:

I did my best to not use sources that are pulled from personal websites. I used sources that would be reliable and open to the public:

-Regarding personal life and family: i used newspaper clippings from a Montclair NJ newspaper that was archived by the Jewish Federation (has a wiki), and for education i found records in the archives of rutgers uni (has a wiki). Information about his wife is published by the JSSA (which has a wiki)

-for career, I used JP Morgan Chase (has a wiki) published material. Those materials are cited and copies of these are found in wikicommons. They include a letter from Thomas Garvey who was the Executive Vice President of JP Morgan Chase and President of Chase Retail Mortgage. It also includes JP Morgan Chase's article publication Financial Alternatives, also found in wiki commons.

- Regarding current companies, current living location and aviation, these were all pulled from State of Maryland and USA Federal government websites that have public record of companies filed, current address, aviation licenses and owned aircrafts.

-Regarding his non-profit work, his position is found on the website of the nonprofit, and there is an article that discusses the nonprofit published by a news website owned by Hubbard Broadcasting INc (has a wiki) Gheleebtariq (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't meet Wikipedia's definition of notability by being written about our receiving awards from their own employers or by being photographed with important people. Besides being reliable, sources for notability have to be independent of the subject. Largoplazo (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not being listed as as source. There are no sources being listed from a source in which the subject is an owner or a controlling party of. All of the sources being used are sources that are deemed notable, as they have their own Wiki pages.

These are the specific sources, please clarify specifically what is not credible - as I am still not getting a direct answer:

-Early Life and Education: Sources are the Montclair NJ Newspaper that is archived by the Jewish Federation/ Jewish Historical Society (1965); Rutgers University

-Career: Sources are a publication made by JP Morgan Chase and recordings by the government office of the Maryland Department of Assessments & Taxation.

-Personal: Sources are the Maryland Department of Assessments & Taxation, Jewish Social Service Agency, the Federal Aviation Agency, and Hubbard Broadcasting Inc.

Those that are not found to be credible, I would like to see these sources flagged on other articles across Wiki as well, and it does not make sense to me to particularly flag this page when other articles are utilizing the same sources.

Based on Wikipeida's definitions of notability:

-It is presumed as the subject is covered by reliable sources - notable non-profits, journalistic media, and known finance corporations/figures

-Info is reliable as it is not coming from the subject, it is coming from various sources that are not controlled by the subject. The subject is separated from all sources and those sources are reliable.

-According to Wikipedia, Sources do not have to be online and must be secondary sources. Sources mentioned are secondary and are not coming from the subject directly.

-The sources are independent of the subject. The subject has no influence of any sources. The sources are themselves independent have no influence by the subject. Gheleebtariq (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure property tax records and gov't records are what we're looking for under sourcing... I don't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
State assessment records and government records are for only current pilot license, aircraft ownership and living information. Most of the records pertaining to notability and life of the contact is credible sources. I am not being provided with information about what can be done to improve the page or what is missing. I am being given general opinions. The individual is affiliated with Charles Scharf (CEO of Wells Fargo), Tom Harvey (EVP of JP Morgan and President of Chase Mortgage) and Sonia Chase (WNBA). Sources that prove notability are JP Morgan Chase and Hubbard Broadcasting. Supporting/Supplemental sources for the extra info in the bio are Rutgers University, the Jewish Social Service Agency (JSSA), FAA, and State of Maryland. I would like to point out that there are plenty of wiki articles that exist with few credible resources, containing resources that are questionable. In this case, sources for the subject that discuss their accomplishments are coming from JP Morgan Chase directly. This is one of the largest banks in the world. And the individual is pictured with the biggest names in banking. If you were to search in wiki-commons for Kenneth Brown, you will see that they are note worthy as they are found with the historic executives of JP Morgan Chase. These sources are found on wiki commons. Again, if there are questions of credibility of sources or incorrectness of citations, please provide specifics. All I am seeing are general and quick blanket statements that do not address the points of issues that can be fixed. Are publications by JP Morgan Chase not credible? Are publications that the executives of JP Morgan Chase make not credible? Are records kept by the Jewish Social Service Agency (JSSA) and Hubbard Broadcasting not credible? Is Sonia Chase of the WNBA not credible? If the answer to all these questions are yes, then I have a framework to work with to improve the article or at least question the subject. But so far, the first person to question the page states they are "Not sure if the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article", and the second person states "I'm not sure property tax records and gov't records are what we're looking for under sourcing" when those sources are supplement to provide details on their personal life and not so much the main details - which is career. In the washington DC area, and in banking nationally, people in banking know this individual. And clearly, the subject would not have photos with the CEO of Wells Fargo, the EVP of JP Morgan Chase and President of Chase Mortgage, and photos with WNBA player Sonia Chase if this was an insignificant person. Given that in (todays money with adjustment for inflation), they themselves have generated nearly a billion dollars in 5 years for a bank is notable for anyone on a global scale. This accomplishment is unheard by even the highest standards today. For sure it is notable for any bank (especially one of the largest banks in the world). If you object, please provide a bulleted list that is constructive that I can use to improve the page, rather than generic statements. I do not believe this page should be taken down, as this is someone who is not only accomplished globally in a competitive field for a company known around the world, but this person is also well respected in their field on a regional level. Gheleebtariq (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid presenting a wall of text; can you show the three best sources about this person? Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly successful businessman, but not notable. There are some complaints about his real estate business on the Better Business Bureau site for his business Quasar though he still gets a good BBB rating. I find him on all the social media as he promotes himself widely. But I don't find independent sources. BTW "kenneth brown realtor" is the main search I did. Lamona (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there a search done for Kenneth Brown realtor when there is no mention of realtor made? Gheleebtariq (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as it says in the article: "After retiring from JP Morgan Chase, Brown founded a global commercial real estate private equity firm called QUASAR in 2008." His current business is real estate. Gheleebtariq, you included this in the article when you created it. Lamona (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct as that is what I found in the public, but I did not type realtor in the article. I do not know if they are a realtor or not Gheleebtariq (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A realtor is a person who arranges the sale of property between buyers and sellers. A person running a "global commercial real estate private equity firm" is not a realtor. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His company is "Quasar Property Management And Real Estate". And his company lists sales. And he lists sales on real estate sites. Lamona (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He works for a real estate firm, we cast a wide net to try and see what comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article contains a wide range of primary sources mixed with a couple other sources that don't mention the article subject being used in WP:OR fashion. Left guide (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify, as I am not sure how you are concluding to delete:

Sources:

Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation: This is being reported by the State of Maryland, this is considered Primary

The Montclair Times 1965 (archived by the Jewish Social Service Agency) - Secondary Source

Rutgers University - Secondary Source

JP Morgan Chase Letter (found in wikicommons) - Primary Source, separated from the subject

JP Morgan Chase Publication - Secondary Source

FAA - Primary Source, seperated from subject

WTOP/Hubbard - Secondary Source Gheleebtariq (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are acceptable... You need articles about this person, not any old listing on a website/list. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do wish that the source citations here were more complete, and presumably the article's editor(s) should be able to provide them, since they presumably accessed them at some point. The two that had URLs turn out to not mention Kenneth Brown. I am trying to find the Montclair Times article but am having problems with newspapers.com. I do note that at least one of the images with Brown in it (2005) gives Brown as the author. I can only assume that the picture was provided by Brown but that he is not the author. As this was a company event, there may be copyright issues. I am beginning to be concerned that there are COI issues. In any case, we are still lacking independent sources. (Anything from JP Morgan Chase is not independent, the WTOP source fails verification, and we don't even have a title for the Montclair Times article.) Lamona (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this feedback as this is more elaborate and I can understand the thought process. Given the bulk of the information pertaining to career is coming directly from JP Morgan, and it is not considered independent, then I can understand the flag for deletion. I was of the opinion that it would be independent, as it was not written directly by the subject. I had flagged another article, separate from this, where the sources mostly coming from the subject himself and it was reversed by an admin because they stated its a notable person. But regardless, I accept whichever decision is made. I fixed the WTOP reference, I utilized the non-profit site to verify involvement and the WTOP reference verifies the non-profit exists. The Montclair Times article is on newspaper.com. It can also be found through the JSSA archives: (URL - https://jhsnj-archives.org/?a=d&d=njjn19650507-01.1.38&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------). Gheleebtariq (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link that you gave is to the "Jewish News" not the Montclair Times. (I looked at Montclair Times on newspapers.com and did not find anything about him on that date.) It is the wedding announcement for two people who are listed in the article as his parents, but they could be two random people since we don't have a source that says he was born to them. Lamona (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. In my experience, long winded replies to justify an article is often an indicator of conflict of interest. User:Gheleebtariq should declare if they know the article subject. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the subject. I am adding notable people in the DC area. Lamona articulated what was missing very well so if it is deleted I understand. The other comments did not make specific reasoning, so I did not understand what I did wrong. Gheleebtariq (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the Significant Coverage rule, and to be blunt, is sort of run of the mill. I don’t understand, other than one story in which he sold more stuff than anyone else, how he’s notable. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 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 Sally Steele. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave My Heart Alone

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

There is nothing to establish WP:NMUSIC here. BEFORE does not turn out anything. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sally Steele: Found no coverage myself. Tag redirect as {{r from album}} and {{r without mention}}. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sally Steele. The album is only visible in typical retail and streaming directories, and I can find no reliable reviews or commentary upon its release in 2023. Even the singer only briefly mentions the lost album (recorded in late 1980s) in her own self-published book ([6]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sally Steele as suggested, which is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 25 September 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 Flatness (manufacturing). Please don't bring an article to AFD if your goal is Merge or Redirect. There are other ways of handling that editing choice than launching a week long consideration of whether or not the article should be deleted. It's kind of a waste of time for the few editors who participate in AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth's three plates method

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

The topic is already in the page Flatness (manufacturing); I propose merging the content into that page and turning this into a redirect. I don't see a rationale for having it isolated. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LDM,

I actually see it the other way around: that particulars of achieving flatness should be on its own page, whereas the page on flatness should instead do a better job of explaining how its measured, why it's important, etc. For example, what is a "helium light band"? Not obvious, and the linked section only mentions its equivalent, but not the rational for the name.

I haven't had more time to research this in greater detail, but I also think there's some misattribution of Whitworth's three plates method. It would be interesting to clarify exactly what he contributed to Henry Maudslay's work, and why it wasn't named after him instead.

Lastly, similar-but-slightly different explanation of the 3 plate method are spread across multiple pages, with more elaborated detail there than is necessary. I think it would be good to centralize them all here.

LMK what you think! Amomchilov (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I searched under a variant of the title and found several more secondary sources. I wish I knew more about topography and manufacturing, even though I’ve worked in both fields. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, did you check the longer page Flatness (manufacturing)? This is a merge nomination, not a deletion, and the number of sources does not matter. It is better to have a single more comprehensive page than two too short ones (stubs).

To @Amomchilov, the alternative to not merging would be if you improve both so they are independent and better. Otherwise the #Method section here could (should ?) just be moved to the other where the method is already described in less detail. Combining with other relevant pages as you suggest would be even better -- which are they? Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merge. I’m not sure why you took the matter here in such case, if you thought that it was non-controversial. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing a WP:TNT merge without discussion on an article that is 3 days old is impolite to the original editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 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!} 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballerina Farm

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

I noted that the article has multiple issues, but upon further review, I'm not sure this meets Wikipedia's standards WP:N. Winning regional pageants and having a lot of TikTok followers is not necessarily grounds for meriting an article. Flangalanger (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Flangalanger (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.wsj.com/articles/instagram-stars-make-farm-life-look-delightfulminus-the-manure-11629733123 and other references in the article show this passes the general notability guidelines. I click the Wikipedia reference search at the top of the AFD and find even more coverage from this year. https://www.thecut.com/article/ballerina-farm-hannah-neeleman-culture-war-response.html https://www.vogue.com/article/on-ballerina-farm-and-ballets-crushing-lessons-in-femininity https://people.com/who-is-hannah-neeleman-ballerina-farm-controversy-explained-8686193 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ballerina-farm-trad-wife-hannah-neeleman-1235072506/ https://www.vulture.com/article/whats-going-on-with-ballerina-farm-hannah-neeleman.html Dream Focus 22:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Glamour and the Wall Street Journal are RS, I'm not sure what else you'd look for... We have about a dozen sources, some better than others. We at least have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Well past WP:GNG. If nominator is still concerned about the article straddling Hannah's career and farm, (per this edit summary [7]) I'd be fine renaming to "Hannah Neeleman" to reflect the focus of most coverage (which is almost entirely focused on her portrayal of tradwife culture, not just TikToks and pageants!). Oh, and I know traffic isn't usually a factor at AfD but for what it's worth, the article has gotten 246,000 page views in the past two months [8], on par with many former US presidents.[9] Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG and has coverage from reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of antisemitic incidents in Kemp Mill, Maryland

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

This article is a bundle of WP:SYNTH and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to conjure an encyclopedic topic that otherwise fails WP:GNG. In his comment removing the OR maintenance tag, the page creator is technically correct that everything is cited, but there is not one source that provides an overview connecting these incidents and covering antisemitism in Kemp Mill as a combined topic. Instead, the page creator has created a WP:COATRACK on which to hang a series of events over a 35-year period with no reliable sources to connect them except this article. As a result, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Judaism, and Maryland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some odd mix of trivia, things in 1989. Then nothing until the 2020s... You can pick any two dates and random and find things that happen, this is hardly a pattern. 1989, then nothing, then 2022 going forward. I don't see the need for this... The 90s, 2000s and 2010s were totally fine, with no events happening? Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while some things are cited well, others don’t seem to match the claims being made, and there’s definitely some synth going on. It’s one of those ones where I think it MIGHT be possible to salvage an article out of this, but 1/ It’s not really a list - it’s a series of assertions, and 2/ I’m 50/50 whether it manages to hit sufficient notability as a not list, but as a “list” it fails the cut. If creator or anyone else sits down between now and decision time, and actually edits it into a coherent whole as an article, I might change my vote to weak keep / keep, but as a list, no. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is classic WP:SYNTH. I searched for secondary sources connecting or grouping these events together in an overview-level historical manner (even a timeline at a minimum), and came up empty. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find anything sourcing these events together. It might make a good list of reference for an article over at WikiNews but I'm not really seeing this as a list nor an article. It's clearly important to someone since they went to all the work to create it so if new sources are found (maybe some local Hebrew sources?) I would be interested in revisiting. Please ping me if anyone finds anything. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations#Extradimensional realms. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qward

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV and the article is mostly unreliable sources, for what material even has sources at all. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the extradimensional realms section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE if no reliable sources can be found. Also if this happens, I ask that the closer of this discussion merges the Weaponers of Qward to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics and redirects the Qwardians information to List of alien races in DC Comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations#Extradimensional realms, where it is already included. Searches are only turning up trivial mentions in non-primary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations#Extradimensional realms, per above. Agree sources do not show notability and this is the best redirect target. Rhino131 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations#Planetary systems. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daxam

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV and the article is mostly unreliable sources, for what material even has sources at all. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the planet section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE if no reliable sources can be found. Also, merge anyone who redirects to this page to the different List of DC Comics characters page and redirect Daxamite to List of alien races in DC Comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations#Planetary systems where it is already included. Coverage in non-primary sources is trivial, and generally is just mentioned as the origin for specific characters (i.e. "Mon-El is from Daxam"). There is no real significant coverage discussing the planet itself. Rorshacma (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Universe locations#Planetary systems, per above. Agree that the sources in the article do not show notability and that this is the best redirect target. Rhino131 (talk) 12:49, 23 September 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 Sons of Odin#An alternative list of Odin's sons. Consensus for redirect, with further merge that can be done from article history, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildólfr

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure yet how much is out there, but Female-Voice Song and Women’s Musical Agency in the Middle Ages, p. 371-372 and Heroic Legend and Onomastics: Hálfs saga, Das Hildebrandslied and the Listerby Stones are two sources which have analysis beyond verifying the pure mention. Daranios (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is already mentioned at Sons of Odin#An alternative list of Odin's sons, so that could be a potential Merge/Redirect target if there is not enough to develop a full article here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sons of Odin#An alternative list of Odin's sons for now: Until someone finds more sources, I guess the two listed above could still fit into that target. Daranios (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge as suggested, for now. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at least for now, per Daranios. This isn't enough coverage for its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 26 September 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. Consensus lean towards a keep after the newly found sources denoting notability. The article can be further expanded using those sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildr

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No single most obvious place to redirect, but doesn't seem standalone notable and the hits I'm getting are mostly from God of War, not actual mythology. Better to let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am satisfied by Daranios' sources to indicate there is a modicum of coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valkyrie, where she is mentioned several times, and add a redirect hatnote there to Hildr Hrólfsdóttir. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Daranios. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's quite a few pages on Hildr in sources like Kinship in Old Norse Myth and Legend, Monsters and the Monstrous in Medieval Northwest Europe and Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Any reason why these should not count towards notability here? Hildr also has its own entry in the Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore, even if that is not overly long. Daranios (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the sources mentioned above can provide enough additional material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub and therefore fullfil the notability requirements. Daranios (talk) 14:46, 24 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Dice

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

Promotional article for a cryptocurrency gambling site, no reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, Organizations, and Websites. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should be expanded, but there are no promotional elements in its writing and, therefore, it can be maintained. Franco98silva (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unambiguously promotional; the sources are the usual crypto blog trash. Nothing here to pass WP:NCORP. Should have been G11'd. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Block (online casino)

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

Promotional article for a cryptocurrency gambling site, no reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, and Organizations. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-promotional sourcing to be found. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion it is similar to the articles of other websites of the same type that we have on wikipedia, it could be improved and more solid references could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiskk23 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Purely and unambiguously promotional; sources fail WP:NCORP and WP:NCRYPTO. Should have been G11'd. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 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 14:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turhan Mildon

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

Fails GNG and sources found all routine or promo. No WP:INHERIT just because his company is notable. WP:BEFORE check did not yield any substantive sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Articles are about the company. Mysecretgarden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 21 September 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. The provided sources and keep arguments clearly state that the subject meets notability, even with limited media representation. There is a clear consensus against deletion. (non-admin closure) Old-AgedKid (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Adu Kwakye

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

Totally AI-generated text that does not match the sources used. Article subject is a non-notable arm wrestler, I can find only brief mentions of the individual; won silver in two categories in arm wrestling at the 2023 African Games. No extended coverage that I can discover and nothing like the content the article suggests, although I am in no way the best-placed to discover Ghanaian sources. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pickersgill-Cunliffe i sincerely appreciate your concern. we are currently running a contest on athletes that has participated in the African Games. This is a major tournament in Africa and a very notable one at that. We understand that these athletes are underrepresented in the media as they tend to focus more on other competitions like AFCON, Olympics among others. Media coverage has always been an issue here in Africa and we are trying in our own capacity not to let their achievements go unnoticed. I know other continents might not be able to relate to this constraint but I'd like to plead with you and other reviewers to resist from tagging subsequent articles for deletion. Thanks for your cooperation. Sunkanmi

Weak keep: Coverage [10], [11], [12], not super extensive, but it confirms the career and wins. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b The first piece is directly from SWAG (see byline). The second piece only has a namedrop and part of one sentence on Kwakye: Derrick Adu Kwakye will have it tough as he comes face to face with Haruna Tahiru who dethroned Asoka in the Armwrestling Super match after several years of dominance. I don't see GNG being met here... JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by Oaktree b here each provide independent coverage of the subject and help this BLP meet the WP:GNG. Although some editing needs to happen here to improve the WP:NPOV, that is not a reason by itself to delete. Let'srun (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 20 September 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. While AFD is not clean up, I do appreciate that gidonb took the time to improved the article during the course of the discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers

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

This article has no lead section and only references one source. There are no inline citations and the majority of the article is unsourced. The prose is also unprofessional and unencylopedic. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Companies, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This an entry about a historical organization that meets NORG. The entry is based on a book and article that are in the bibliography and on contemporaneous sources. I have added an intro and moved the sections around a bit. It was written by some of the standards at Nlwiki. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article does need a rename. gidonb (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why there are no inline citations. Certainly doesn't look like this article has broad coverage either. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book and a book chapter. Both certainly independent of the subject, RS, SIGCOV, and right on topic. Response is in defiance of AFDISNOTCLEANUP and NEXIST. Per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source so we will not miss it. gidonb (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book chapter nor a book itself, where is your proof for that? If someone wrote a book about the subject it might be logical that this has the same title and also that I refer to it. If I write about the English EIC it might be logical that EIC is inside the title isn't it? Your remarks really make no sense at all. Johan Francke (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name is inside the title. As I said, a book and a book chapter that are also in the bibliography list. gidonb (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to four works and also the archival source is given. A lead section already has been added Johan Francke (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many nominations fail AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SOFIXIT. gidonb (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same article is published in a Dutch version, and there no single comment was given. It has also been published in another encyclopedic wiki site. Johan Francke (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing it. Inclined to suggest SK1 if nom doesn't come up with a more intelligible reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gidonb. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whether inline citations are present or not is irrelevant; it has sources adequate for notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view, the topic certainly is notable and should have an article on enwiki. What I am puzzled about is the copyright issue. As the author, @Johan Francke, pointed out, the text was published before. Here is the link. This original dutch text mentions the same Mr. Francke as the original author. The Encyclopedie van Zeeland, a project of the Zeeland Library and, if I am not mistaken, the Royal Zeeland Scientific Society, used to claim copyright. On the current site of the Encyclopedie van Zeeland there is no mention of the copyright issue. A cache version of the old text of the Algemeen Voorbehoud (general caveats) can still be found, however, in which ZB has the copyright on all texts. Mr Francke, who is employed at ZB and is project leader for the Encyclopedie van Zeeland wiki, surely is the right person to clarify the copyright issue. The fact that Mr. Francke now publishes his 2021 text on the english Wikipedia, does this mean that ZB has waived its copyright? If so, under which conditions? Is that policy change documented somewhere? Are all EZ texts now in public domain? Can we all copy Encyclopedie van Zeeland lemmata on nlwiki and enwiki? And what about the images, I understand they are from Zelandia illustrata. Is that public domain too? Finally, should our enwiki article not state somewhere that the text is translated from the dutch original at the Encyclopedie van Zeeland? Lots of questions. I hope Mr Francke has some good news for us and can provide evidence that ZB has waived copyright and all texts are in public domain, and that Zeeuws Archief has done the same regarding the images in Zelandia Illustrata. Looking forward to it!

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Spice and Food Industries

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

Fails WP:NCORP - lacks non-routine in-depth coverage. This article is a "staff report" but is very promotional in nature - I don't think it is an example of independent substantial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. I would reconsider if there is significant coverage in Urdu. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 26 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Kadri

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

I have not found sufficient reliable, independent news coverage of the topic, which is required by WP or the General Notability guidelines RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails WP:GNG.--Gabriel (……?) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has multiple, reliable sources as references: The Wall Street Journal, WBCSD website, ERT website, Bloomberg, Fortune, Reuters, etc. Ilham Kadri is a notable person within the chemical industry and not only. She was CEO of Solvay and is now CEO of Syensqo, a Belgian multinational science company. She is also an important member of international organizations: executive committee chair of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), permanent member of the World Economic Forum (WEF), president of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), and more. Additionally, in 2021, she received the Légion d'honneur; and she is also Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Namur (Belgium) and EWHA University (Korea). --E.D.G. (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article meet WP:Notable and reliable independent references Tesleemah (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she was CEO of a historically major corporation. However, there’s a lot of fluff and trivia that could be taken out. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jubani

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

6 games in Albania’s highest league, continued in the semi-pro second tier before playing one last season in the Kategoria Superiore. I couldn't find any sources to make this person meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This is too brief, and this is too reliant on quotes, 2 of the 3 sections about Jubani are exclusively made up of quotes. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Kaçiku

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

Never played in Albania’s highest league, only that of Kosovo, as well as the semi-pro second tier in Albania and Austrian Regionalliga. What I find is either way too short [13] [14] [15], not really about him [16] [17] [18] or the usual database and social media hits. There is one articles with a tendency towards significance, which is this. What do you think? Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Juzhan

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

Played 4 games in China League One, a few more in China League Two. I don't think this is enough for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A relatively short career. Has not played top professional level. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Xin (footballer)

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

Played 6 minutes in the Chinese Super League, 15 minutes in the semi-pro Danish second tier, some more games in China League Two according to Soccerway. I don't see enough for fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MásMóvil

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

lack of notable sources and link to meet notability RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:21, 21 September 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 Hamley Bridge–Gladstone railway line. ✗plicit 11:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamus Liptrot Cycling Trail

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

I don't think this article meets our notability criteria. It only cites external links to primary sources and not reliable, secondary sources. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant information to Hamley Bridge–Gladstone railway line, preferably with at least one secondary source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hamley Bridge–Gladstone railway line per above. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 23 September 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 Mount Gambier railway line. RL0919 (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gambier Rail Trail

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

I don't think this article meets our notability criteria. It only cites external links to primary sources and not reliable, secondary sources. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mount Gambier railway line. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mount Gambier railway line. Bduke (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Gambier railway line per above. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statrys

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTIFY does not allow redraftiification without formal consensus, so here we are. WP:ADMASQ, this is a WP:ROTM business, failing WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Hong Kong, and France. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of meeting WP:NCORP, all the coverage is trivial. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Statrys to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. RL0919 (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bidoof

AfDs for this article:

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

Sigh Here we go again... Bidoof continues to fail WP:GNG as a non-notable Pokemon, even after the article resurrection. Why? Notability is not inherited. Most of the reception is talking about Bidoof Day - a separate topic - or the Bidoof's Big Stand animated short, also a separate topic. It's the equivalent of citing quotations from game reviews to justify the notability of a character within the game. While the Vice article has a solid amount of discussion about the Pokemon itself, that's only one source, and the other "major" one is a heavily meme-y Kotaku article, of the sort editors are advised to avoid at all costs. Many other sources are rather trivial.

I think Big Stand is arguably more notable than the Pokemon itself with a couple major reviews [19] [20] - though still not quite notable enough for an article from what I've found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As is demonstrated in WP:GNG, a citation does not need to be talking about the subject primarily in order for it to be usable as a show of notability for the subject. Multiple citations used in the article state that Bidoof's popularity among the fanbase is responsible for why things like Bidoof's Big Stand and Bidoof Day exist in the first place, so to argue that their notability is not related to Bidoof itself is not a well-founded argument to make. This article provides sigcov on Bidoof as a meme, and this source, despite being a "listicle," provides adequate coverage and discussion of Bidoof to constitute sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a gentle reminder, be sure to notify all relevant editors of the deletion of the article, not just the person who made the first edit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elected to change to Redirect after discussing the topic with another editor. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect No consensus to override the last AFD and this continues to fail WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Zx here. I've gone through the articles sources, and besides the Vice article, I'm not particularly convinced. The Polygon and Kotaku sources are pretty meme-y and are mostly just quoting Twitter posts, and I can't say they give much weight. I also don't know if I can count a ranking of all 150 original Pokemon as "significant coverage" when it's just a small paragraph in a sea of 149 other paragraphs. I don't think there's significant critical commentary here. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't think this meets the mark... λ NegativeMP1 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect while I am a massive fan of this series and would love for a separate Bidoof article, I feel the current article is just not really cutting it. I have no oppositions to reviving this should more Bidoof content occur in the future, but right now, it feels like it's taking a lot of notability from Bidoof's Big Stand and Bidoof Day, which aren't really talking about Bidoof the species, and that it's better off probably waiting in the oven a bit longer.

As an aside, I feel Bidoof's Big Stand has potential as an article given the coverage for the episode, but I'd have to double check the strength of the refs on that one. Either way, I'd suggest redirecting Bidoof for the time being. No opposition to recreation if more coverage like the Vice source presents itself in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do concur a lot of the notability is in regards to the short specifically, and while it's a known Pokemon, it doesn't feel notable on its own merits after a BEFORE and examining the sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Sorry, but my stance hasn't changed since the last discussion. The coverage is still too weak. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. The coverage doesn't quite meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:46, 26 September 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!} 06:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global society (for sustainable development)

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

Is original research and an WP:ESSAY. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, Economics, Geography, and Social science. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straightforwardly per nom. Reywas92^Talk 13:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an essay and not an article. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, a well-intentioned essay with lots of WP:SYNTHESIS in addition to the original research, and overall adds little to the existing Sustainable development. Wikishovel (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I would have preferred it if the article had been Draftified with comments to the editor about what needs to be done. An AfD is a bit harsh/discouraging as this seems to be their first and only article. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not written like a Wikipedia article JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 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!} 06:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Climate Party

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be significant coverage to pass NCORP or GNG. Beyond a few brief mentions during election coverage, I cannot find any other independent sources. – notwally (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find one vaguely useful reference (the TVNZ one) and that is just not enough to be notable. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:47, 22 September 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!} 06:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GOdsownNZ

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

Fails WP:NCORP and GNG too. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The party never registered as a political party and had only one candidate contest an election. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while msall, the article is properly sourced and passes GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline for political parties. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG trumps all others. If something meets GNG, it can have an article, regardless of other, more specific guidelines. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if NCORP wasn't simply a guide on how to apply GNG to companies, the sources are still outrageously deficient. Since when is two sentences enough for GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find almost no coverage about this political party, and the limited coverage I can find is all from 2017. Does not appear to have sufficient coverage to pass GNG. This seems similar to political candidates, who may receive some coverage during the election season, but are not notable purely because of their candidacy. – notwally (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP which explicitly applies to political parties: "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as ...political parties..." Lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." required per WP:ORGSIG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because it just fails notability in my opinion. The CathNews coverage is almost enough but I question whether that is a reliable-enough outlet to count for establishing notability. I found a passing mention in a column in the NZ Herald (now added to the article) but I think it is still not quite enough. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CathNews articles are supplied by GOdsownNZ according to the website. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clearly does not pass GNG, even without applying NCORP considerations. 1: CathNews NZ, press release from GOdsownNZ N. 2: Scoop, press release N. 3: CathNews NZ, press release N. 4: NZ Herald, ~ two sentences of coverage N. 5: Electoral commission N. 6. GOdsownNZ N. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 25 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Republican Party (1995)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Note that there is another party with the exact same name. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is properly-sourced, and all references refer to this particular party. This being a popular name for small NZ parties is irrelevant.--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party was registered in two general elections despite having almost no impact. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trusting that the newspaper sources do exist (I haven't been able to verify) then that would establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dug them out via "Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre Plus" by limiting it to sources published only in NZ; wikipedia library gives access to EBSCO, but I'm not sure what's included in that version, and there's obvious noise from the US Republicans. IdiotSavant (talk) 22:14, 22 September 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. asilvering (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayelle

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

Non-notable musician. Nothing to indicate she meets any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO. Few WP:RSs-- most sources don't meet WP:RS as they are either not reliable (eg Medium) or not substantively about the subject (eg are about a telethon). Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry- would love to move this to a draft space to remedy this! Sovenfire3982 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy please, or otherwise this will be deleted as too soon. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay— How do I go about moving it into a Draft? Sovenfire3982 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just made the action, now located at Draft:Jayelle. Thank you for your grace! Sovenfire3982 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 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!} 06:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lam

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

Fails NBAD and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Badminton. Stvbastian (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is coverage but it is just generic reporting on tournaments and not in-depth secondary coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lauren Lam to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:20, 24 September 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. asilvering (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wilson (businessman)

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards under WP or the General Notability Guidelines due to insufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources. More independent media references are required to demonstrate significant coverage and establish notability. Moarnighar (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Florida, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There are some lists and tangential references, but nothing in depth about the subject. Owning a bunch of cars isn’t proof of notability; it’s evidence of avarice. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 25 September 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!} 06:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gufic Biosciences Ltd

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as it lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable news sources. Moarnighar (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 20 September 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!} 06:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Securities

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards under WP, as it lacks sufficient coverage by reliable, independent news sources. More independent media references are needed to establish notability beyond promotional content. Moarnighar (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it covers a notable state-owned corporation that plays a significant role in the distribution of electricity in Andhra Pradesh, contributing to public infrastructure and services.--Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It literally is self-contradictory. There’s a Ref bomb about sponsorship of an annual cultural event. There’s a discussion about regular stock market sales. Then it says it’s a Halal investor. From my understanding of that market from an old law school chum, that’s not allowed; you can’t hold both Halal and ordinary investments. Then there’s a bizarre allegation that it’s not a stock brokerage, but rather a governmental entity. I’ve written extensively on the topic of energy law, and my conclusion is that This is nonsense. If I’m wrong, please clarify it on this page and in the article. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 25 September 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!} 04:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Ručkay

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for this Slovak ice hockey player. A source that is the closest to significant coverage is Teraz. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : No English source. If no reliable source about the subject then I see a delete vote for me here.--Gabriel (……?) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of New Zealand national rugby league team test matches

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

Article relys on a single source, article is strangely formatted and isn't consistent with other similar articles, case for WP:TNT so a proper List of New Zealand national rugby league team results can be created.

Previously PRODed, and was reverted on the basis that the article could be improved and that I as PRODed nominator had changed the name of the page. Yes, article could be improved, but there is virtually nothing novel or useful on this page so don't see why edit history needs retaining for a new article "List of New Zealand national rugby league team results". Articles name was changed to better reflect the article content. But in reality, it is so far away from the standard way to display a list of national team results that it's best to be deleted. To fix this page would involve removing 99% of the content anyway. Mn1548 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDB Traumnovelle (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (it really helps when you mention this in an edit summary) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 20 September 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 Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. This is the consensus of the discussion, as I see it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and the article besides its definition is merely an example farm of unrelated examples that are better off examined in articles like cheating or corruption. It is tough to make sense of it, due to how seemingly random and far from each other each example is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, WP:NOTDICTIONARY as nom said. Second, every single source is either unreliable (a PDF of a slide deck, conference proceedings) or a passing example of someone using the phrase in a radically different context. Third, many of the examples are either unsourced or disconnected from each other, WP:SYNTH. And while "gaming the system" might be a specific form of cheating, we just can't have an article without an in-depth source on what makes this form of cheating distinct; a bunch of cherry-picked uses of the term aren't going to cut it. (And I find it hard to believe nobody ever used this term before 1975...a claim sourced to the aforementioned conference proceedings). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. No time to do a WP:BEFORE search myself, but assuming this is not notable as a separate topic WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered. Aside from the first one, I don't see what's wrong with the secondary sources of the first paragraph. And sentence two to five are not at all what would fit into a dictionary definition but rather historical or analytical commentary. So contrary to the main point of the nomination, this does not fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. So even if the rest were WP:SYNTH, which I have not time to look into, sentences two to five should be WP:PRESERVEd. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. This subject does not meet WP:GNG to be suitable for a standalone article. Jtwhetten (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what some sock was up to, check the history--it's not worth keeping it here, not even struck through. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the strangest thing I have seen people using socks for. Northern Moonlight 22:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was ironic, given the subject. They were trying to "game the system". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (or Keep) with a clear link to Letter and spirit of the law and maybe renaming to Gaming the system (law) in case of disambiguation. Article should be clearer if the disambiguation splits the article into several non-overlapping topics. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. That article couldn't exist as standalone because of insufficient reliable sources to back. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed blocking this sock: Playing the system (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no doubt this does not meet GNG, but several !votes above suggest merge as an ATD, and ATDs are usually preferred. However, welcome as such suggestions are, I don't see why this subject (which is not so much one subject as any subject where system gaming/rule bending is possible) should be chosen for a redirect. If someone were to search on this term, I think it would be odd to land on a "letter and spirit of the law" page, rather than to be presented by a list of pages where the term may be found. So I don't think the redirect is helpful, and I don't see what content on this page could be safely and beneficially merged there. I think this is a case where straight deletion is preferable to the ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. AKK700 15:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Abuse#Gaming the system, which appears to be this article's parent? or No Child Left Behind Act#Gaming the system? or Loophole? or Game theory? or Behavioral game theory? or Strategy (game theory)? or Cheating? or Cheating in online games? or Gamification? Why are we settling on this one page for merge when 4150 wikipedia pages discuss gaming the system in hundreds of contexts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy🏄, I don't mean to be speaking for the editor but this article is mentioned by other editors in this discussion as a Merge target article. That's probably why it was selected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My question is to all editors contributing to this discussion. I don't see why that is the appropriate merge target. Is it being chosen because of an anchoring effect following its first mention? See my !vote directly above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 23 September 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. While the nomination was flawed, there was no objection to deletion, including by the article author. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buried Hearts

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

The article's title neither official nor confirmed as the English title from the independent secondary reliable sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Korea. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken in WP:TVSERIES, as long as the article had its creator, writer, and confirmed cast members with reliable sources, the article may be notable, and the title can be change if it's WP:COMMONTITLE. Aidillia (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidillia You're right about TVSERIES that's why I created a draft article of the drama but on COMMONTITLE I will disagree just for the same reason of my AfD rationale. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should just moved it to the original title? Aidillia (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, do you just wish to rename it? Feel free. (A note would seem enough but if you think your title is better, I support the move) Or to move it to Draft and merge with your Draft? I’m OK with that too but not opposed to Keep, given your exchange above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank I like the idea of merging it to draft to preserve the contents. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees with that, I support the idea. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the article i create, is it possible? not to merge? just let 98Tigerius create it on another page of title.. Aidillia (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that this is at AfD, we have to wait for the close. I am not opposed to Delete if you, the creator and only content contributor, really wish, but it’s not my call. Can I ask why you want this deleted? Is it not better to merge? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better not to merge it.. it is not like I'm doing WP:CUTPASTE. Aidillia (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean a de facto merge with no redirect left behind, am I correct?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. You should bring an article to AFD if you are seeking its deletion. Lots of chit chat here but so far no consensus over what should happen with this article. Please give ONE bolded vote. Don't offer a combination of possibilities, just state what you want to happen today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz, I am honestly quite surprised by the content and tone of this relist. The page about how AfDs should be conducted says we can COMBINE various possibilities (at least TWO, and that is a quite common way to !vote, as you obviously know, so no, sorry, one should not ONLY bold ONE !vote if they consider two options are possible ); and the chit chat (I am not sure why you would want to use that word, that might sound dismissive to participants in this discussion and discourage them; such is at least my case) seemed like a constructive and polite discussion to me, and its goal was to reach consensus. For the rest, I think the nominator just changed their mind during the course of the discussion and originally wished to delete it. At the same time, the page creator changed their mind too and went from rename to delete; they eventually asked to have their own page deleted but I assume, your relist not mentioning that issue, that my reply indicating that we should wait for a close was correct (I indicated not opposed to Delete to allow the closing admin to choose that option). So, very sorry, I do not mean to be contrarian (and generally !vote for 1/2 for possibilities), but here, although I understand it is unusual and can appear contradictory, I will stand by my multiple !vote and do not mind if it goes one of the indeed multiple ways I bolded (some worded as "not opposed to", some being conditional, deletion if that is the wish of the creator; keep and rename if this is the target of the other draft redirecting to it or redirect and merge if it is made the other way around). My idea was precisely to allow a quick and easy close. Maybe I was wrong but that's what I meant. Now, it is true that no clear consensus has emerged so far. But that is rather common in AfDs and they can be closed as non consensus in that case. Most of all, a consensus might emerge from our chit chat, although it will be most likely without any further input from myself. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, Mushy Yank, if my words offended you. All I can say is that I review over 100 open AFDs every day and I might, at a certain point late at night, become a little glib or sarcastic. Considering that most admins and editors who relist discussions offer no comments at all, I didn't really consider that my remarks might land poorly. I'd strike my comment if I regreted saying it but it is still pretty much my assessment on the state of this discussion. It does look like recently some editors have bolded some words in their comments which makes things a little clearer. If you have no problems with 99 of my other relistings, can you forgive this one? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz, thank you for your kind reply, I probably overreacted anyway (maybe because I thought that this particular AfD was being held in a very smooth way with 2 friendly and thoughtful other users, which I found rather enjoyable and a good (and rather rare, alas) example in terms of civil interaction at AfDs) and realise now my reply was too long, especially regarding just one word, that I could have taken with a grain of salt. And, of course, your relists and the rest of your work are, as you know, appreciated by all, including myself. I'll try to bold less :D but this case is very special (never seen such a configuration and it probably will never happen again; two of the !voters have created concurrent/duplicate Drafts on the same (not necessarily notable yet) series: the nominator, who wanted it deleted, now wants it merged, while the creator, who wanted it renamed, would rather have it deleted, both with what I find to be acceptable reasons (I'm repeating myself, yes). Thank you again. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and is still in pre-production stage. RangersRus (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, TOOSOON. Independent coverage is absent. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 27 September 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!} 05:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Canteen

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

Appears like an advertisement/promotion for the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Proposing deletion. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article aligns with various other government schemes in Andhra Pradesh, similar to initiatives of various states like Amma Unavagam, Amma Kudineer, Indira Canteens, and Ahar Yojana, which are all state-owned restaurant services. Additionally, I don't believe the language used is promotional in nature, so I'm unsure why you consider it to be advertisement/promotion for the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The article is well-supported by numerous reliable sources from reputable media sources as mentioned, thus I object this nomination.

The content that I have contributed is in-line and complying with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Copyrights principles of Wikipedia in my good faith. 456legend talk 07:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @456legend that this just reads like a description of a public welfare program, with a bit of praise for the people who set it up but otherwise factual and neutral. The claim this is promotional is unfounded (unless you want to say The revival aims to continue providing affordable and nutritious meals to all individuals is puffery.)

For sources we have Times of India on the initial launch, and another from ToI on the relaunch, and an article from India today. At least - I stopped there because all three are significant coverage but I'll look further if other editors think these don't satisfy notability. Oblivy (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears notable to me, see this source for example: dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.4410 Traumnovelle (talk) 06:56, 20 September 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brown (writer)

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

Writer fails WP:NBIO. Article has been tagged for notability since November 2022. GTrang (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References fail to pass WP:SIRS and so article fails to pass WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBIO. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely notable. He has won national book awards in New Zealand and was the Reading Ambassador from 2021–2023. TheSwamphen (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets WP:NBIO. I would be very disappointed if it is deleted without further discussion. TheSwamphen (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "first reading ambassador" role brings this over the line for me. Schwede 66 20:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the sources, they are clearly notable and meet GNG. IdiotSavant (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources and the reading ambassador role prove notability in my opinion. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is here to stay with their notable accomplishment per WP:GNG! Tesleemah (talk) ] 20:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. None of the sources provide IRS SIGCOV -- the Stuff.nz announcement of his being named the National Library's Reading Ambassador comes the closest but is largely quotes/statements from an interview and anyway does not satisfy SUSTAINED, BLP1E, or MULTI. And of course being appointed to a non-notable position by a governmental program is nowhere close to meeting ANYBIO -- we don't even presume notability for ambassadors to foreign countries, why would it be different for ambassadorship of purely domestic programs? Niche awards by newspapers also don't cut it, even when the newspapers are national.

However, I did find a review of one of his collections, so I suppose it's likely he meets NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 24 September 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 redirect to wikt:merits#Noun‎. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merit (law)

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

dicdef with no hope of expansion. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is linked by ~50 articles, and there appears to be no list article of English legal terms to which this could be merged. Thus Redirect using {{Wiktionary redirect}} to wikt:merits#Noun or similar. (Also happy with a merge/redirect to a suitable article in preference to that if one can be identified). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or trans-wikify. There’s no merit to keeping this as a dictionary definition. Pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTADICTIONARY Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xiang (footballer, born 1989)

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

I had difficulty finding any sources in English. The current article doesn't even list number of appearances. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Would reconsider if there are decent sources in Chinese. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NATHLETE, they don't seem to have done anything notable or are mentioned in many sources. Sir MemeGod  12:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some old passing mentions;[21] more recently in 2022 appeared in the news for overstaying his visa.[22] --Paul_012 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 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 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Il-gwang

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea as ATD, where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per above. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 02:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 18:11, 23 September 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. Closing as keep per consensus that NAUTHOR is met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS ^💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.

The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.

Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.

I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.

Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.

Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS ^💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary

In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth

Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of the newly discovered sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the book reviews above and ones I found seem good for him to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Some of the other stuff looks promising but I haven't evaluated that as much. I found some more sources on ProQuest.

hysterically, one of the sources accuses him of having his wikipedia entry edited. We have come full circle PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, PARAKANYAA, which one is that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz It's from the Evening Standard (admittedly a British tabloid, so take with a grain of salt, but I think it's funny), 24 October 2012:

"STEVE Tappin -- an erstwhile headhunter and one-time author who now styles himself as a "CEO coach", was caught out three years ago by a City blog which wondered if he had sexed up his Wikipedia entry.

The collaboratively-edited online encyclopedia then stated that Tappin was a mentor to some of the top names in British business including Sir Terry Leahy and Andy Haste -- then bosses of Tesco and RSA, respectively -- only for the companies to quickly distance themselves from Tappin's claims. The entry was subsequently toned down." Then it goes on to say something about the book and his Twitter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. They are probably referring to the editor Fuzzsoth who commented here and on the article talk page and on several user talk pages. I see so many articles like this about "consultants", I'm surprised to see the support for this one but the consensus is, what it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:NAUTHOR based on presented sources and meets WP:ENT as a host of past TV show on BBC.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadour

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Note tag added. Present coverage all PR. Introducing Amadour, EP being released soon. scope_creep^Talk 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Visual arts, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional biography of an emerging artist. The article is trying to cobble together notability-by-association. It doesn't matter who or how many well known artists someone has studied with or interviewed or written about or allegedly curated into shows. The article has been ref-bombed mostly with things he's written about others; student newspaper profiles in the Daily Bruin(UCLA); blog-ish PR advertorials such as Cultbytes a "strategic communications agency" (PR agency "online publication"); and user submitted content websites "submit your music!". Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Saint Amadour. I can't remember how this came to be on my watchlist, possibly due to a previous article of this name that got deleted. If so, that does not seem to have been about the same person. There are potentially four claims to notability made here: As a visual artist, as a musician, as a writer and as a curator. None of those are substantiated. The article seems to be trying to inherit notability from minor connections to notable topics. The sources are poor. Many are just their writing, which provides verifiability that they have written, but proves no notability. The music coverage is minimal and one of the sources is a Tumblr blog. The visual/conceptual arts stuff is even thinner, most are just a single passing reference in coverage of group shows, mere entries on a list. There is potentially a fifth claim to notability in that they are described as an art critic here. What we seem to have here is a person who is trying various different things in and around the art world and who has yet to become notable for any one of them. Getting redirected to a (probably fictional) saint might seem like a bit of a kick in the teeth but it is the right thing to do, at least for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NewYorkSaid is not a reliable source. Also, redirecting without clearing the page history can still get the redirect turned into this article again, hence it's better to delete the page (clearing entirely it's page edits and history), and then create a new/fresh redirect to the saint's article. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Would participants arguing for a Delete be okay with a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There shouldn't be a room for redirecting rather delete (completely erasing the page history), and then create a redirect to Saint Amadour, who may also be commonly called Amadour. This article generally doesn't meet our guidelines for notability; WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSICBIO. Interviewing people receives no/less coverage, if not the details of the notable person you've interviewed. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS for biographical claims made in this article. Fails WP:ARTIST checking either Amadour or Ricky Amadour. Sources cited are either passing mentions, PR sites, or articles about others. WP:TOOSOON as a journalist or an artist. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of newspapers in Canada. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bancroft Times

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

Newspaper fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 13 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!} 04:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers in Canada: per WP:NNEWSPAPER (weekly, local newspaper, no significant impact) and WP:GNG (could not find many sources after a skim through Google). Sir MemeGod  12:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its confusing that this conversation is happening in two places above and also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bancroft_Times it is an important newspaper with a history of over one hundre years. here is a source. https://hughstephensblog.net/2024/07/10/copyright-in-cottage-country/ 69.159.215.18 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 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!} 04:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawer dishwasher

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

The article solely discusses one manufacturers particular model, and has always been this way; it was renamed from "DishDrawer" to "Drawer dishwasher" early on, but its content has never changed.
The focus of the article is ostensibly on dishwashers that open horizontally. That's nowhere near worthy an entire article.
Very few pages link to it, only dishwasher, the article of the product's manufacturer, and a message to a contributor who was then banned for advertising.
Much of the article's talk page discusses its status as an advertisement and its use of a trademark.

MarquisDonders (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MarquisDonders, you nominated this article for deletion on your 3rd edit (you have a total of 5 edits) but judging from your nomination statement, you clearly know how Wikipedia works. What were your previous account(s)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm computer literate, sure. I've contributed to Wikipedia before anonymously. I read the guidelines for AfDs thoroughly as to not embarrass myself or waste anybody's time.

I understand your concern (presumably) with a relatively new user trying to delete articles and wouldn't fault you for denying the AfD for that reason, but I'd hope my arguments were considered upon their own merit.

MarquisDonders (talk) 05:42, 14 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!} 04:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The info herein was relevant in 2005, for the New Zealand market. The information on this product is now 19 years out of date. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 20 September 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!} 03:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phuttiphong Aroonpheng

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

Thai film director fails WP:NBIO. This article has been redirected twice, but the redirection has been reverted both times by the article creator, who said in both edit summaries to nominate at AfD. GTrang (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FILMMAKER (section 3). Phuttiphong Aroonpheng has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (Manta Ray). The work has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The fact that the article is a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. See WP:TOOSHORT: Wikipedia has many stubs. These should not be deleted for this reason but should be marked as stubs. Khiikiat (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: indeed fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of Manta Ray, a very notable film. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple Thai-language Google search turns up plenty of in-depth coverage.[23][24][25] --Paul_012 (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is a director whose feature film won an award at a competitive and notable film festival, which is well-documented. Venice is not like a non-competitive film festival; it’s probably on par with Cannes or Tribeca. Thailand has become a major film producing hub. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 25 September 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!} 03:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mu-gil

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 21 September 2024 (UT#C)
Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea as ATD where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per above. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 02:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 23 September 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 no guideline-based consensus for her notability on account of the media coverage she has received, even though a clear majority of contributors here are of that view. This is because the reliability of the media sources invoked has been questioned with prima facie persuasive arguments, and subsequently has remained mostly unaddressed. In a possible renomination, discussion should focus on the quality of the sources used in the article. Sandstein 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Tang Williams

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. Winning a U.S. House primary does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page, and I don't see how she passes GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, China, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire#District 2. Candidates rarely, if ever, meet the notability conditions of WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. If she wins in November, we can reassess. But for now, her bio should be merged into the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, I forgot that she has lost multiple elections. I don't know where the best redirect target would be, but if you think it's best for 2024, I'll defer to you. Bkissin (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Bkissin, eight of the 10 references are for her winning the Republican nomination for the district, and not really about her specifically. reppop^talk 21:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There's quite a few sources about her immigration/escape from China, if that matters, such as:

Interview with John Stossel 6 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMWs8RyLLI:

https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/congress/2024/9/10/lily-tang-williams-republican-candidate-unique-perspective

https://bunewsservice.com/lily-tang-williams-living-the-american-dream/

https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/lily-tang-williams-growing-communist-china

From UK (though the Daily Mail is marginal):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146007/lily-tang-williams-congressional-candidate-republican-biden-border.html

From Japan:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/5f210f5b6a3e-focus-asian-americans-voice-reasons-they-back-republicans-in-new-hampshire.html

And actually being in a debate with a sitting Senator as a Libertarian, which pretty much has never happened ("In a first, Libertarian candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race qualifies for major debate"):

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/lily-tang-williams-libertarian-candidate-colorados-us-senate-debate/

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/what-lily-tang-williams-said-colorado-libertarian-u-s-senate/

https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10/15/lily-tang-williams-us-senate/

Colorado Public Radio:

https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/childhood-in-china-shapes-libertarian-senate-candidates-vision-for-colorado-country/

I'm not sure if Fox News is considered a credible source, but there's more about her & China:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/survivor-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-scary-history-repeat-college-campuses

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-immigrant-running-congress-fears-marxism-followed-us-witnessing-youth-indoctrination

https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/survivor-of-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-history-repeat-on-college-campuses/

More about China and the gun control debate with David Hogg:

https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-gun-control-activist-david-hogg-torched-ccp-survivor-go-china-see-gun-control-works/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.125.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are college newspapers not considered valid supporting sources? Heritage Foundation may not be a news outlet but its not deprecated and a highly influential conservative think tank. "Generally" unreliable sources need to be analyzed in totality not in part, so if there are 3 "generally" unreliable sources, a rational determination needs to be made as to whether the small part of them that is reliable is strong enough to create notability. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an academic journal reference where she appears: "Academic Marxism in the Crosshairs: What is at Stake in the U.S.?" in Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2024). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48771892 216.147.125.142 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the exact same reasoning as SineBot above. Plenty of independent coverage Wickster12345 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they meant for the same reasons as noted by SineBot, as they also said: “…has enough news coverage as indicated above”.

Do you, BottleOfChocolateMilk, have any response to what SineBot had to say, as they are the one whose argument seems to inspiring the majority of “Keep” votes Wickster12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yes? I directly replied to their message right after they posted it. Also, that message was not posted by SineBot, it was posted by an IP user. SineBot is the bot that automatically adds a signature to people who don't sign their comments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes the most sense to me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is probably the best option, as she has recieved significant media coverage over numerous years and as a more minor side note, she is a major contender for a swing seat in 2024. NathanBru (talk)

Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But like a previously stated, that was a minor detail. She has recieved significant media coverage and does represent a district that very well could swing her way in 2024. Also, I know we’re not supposed to compare certain cases to each other, but there have been numerous other instances of less notable people in 2024 with Wikipedia articles. NathanBru (talk)

Keep because she has recieved substantial media coverage from major news outlets for both her 2022 and 2024 runs and has appeared in a documentary (The Great Awakening). 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. She has received substantial media coverage for her 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns and for her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign as a Libertarian, has appeared in documentaries, and has been interviewed by national media organizations like Fox News and Newsmax. There's also precedent for people equally and even less significant than Lily Tang Williams having a Wikipedia article. George Hansel is a former small town mayor who unsuccessfully ran for Congress once and now hosts a regional talk show (the station that hosts Hansel's show is so small that it doesn't even broadcast to me, and I live in New Hampshire only an hour away from Keene); Hansel is arguably no more significant than any other local politician, yet considering his article has existed for nearly 3 years without issue, there seems to be no question that he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Lily Tang Williams is much more significant than Hansel and I would argue that she just as deserving of a Wikipedia article, if not more so, than him. Eureka640 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then ignore the Hansel argument. The fact still remains that she has been the subject of much media coverage over the past decade for her Libertarian activism and congressional candidacies, including interviews on major national news stations. Eureka640 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG is met through the sheer number of sources (per above). Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder that deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and are also dependent on the quality and reliability of sources, not just the sheer number of sources. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that she's been covered in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, WMUR-TV (ABC), The Denver Post, the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and an academic journal (noted above). All of those are considered "quality" and "reliable" per Wikipedia's criteria. 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that those are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. reppop^talk 23:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_and_is_not_routine_coverage

"Editors should be careful in defining what is referred to as "routine" coverage, especially when determining notability."

...

""routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability."

""routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline."

Politics

"Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

"Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYi, it was missed that she has been in Fox News on multiple occasions, another extremely notable source. NathanBru (talk)

Keep as WP:GNG is satisfied with the significant media coverage over the years of the subject's political/electoral history. - Amigao (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amigao I think it is time to remove the Afd header.

The person with most of the objections was BottleOfChocolateMilk, who also was the person that nominated the article for deletion. If you go through BottleOfChocolateMilk's talk page, you can see in September alone, they have multiple warnings for "You Appear to be Engaged in an Editing War". They also have warnings for "not to bite the newcomers". A warning for "Please do not attack other editors". Just in this month alone. Looking earlier, they have a warning for improper editing and bias. They have a "Notice of DS": "You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect." So @Amigao, you should remove the AfD header, and end your relisting since the main objections were all from this problematic editor, and there were many votes to keep. 216.147.124.84 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source evaluation table would be really helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be relisted. There was enough discussion. Nine keeps and three redirects. There are plenty of legit sources listed. None of the actual content itself has been disputed.

Even if there wasn't a clear enough consensus in your mind:

"When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus

"relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions

Making an evaluation table is just tedious work. If you think it would be helpful to have the table, you should create it yourself. 216.147.123.209 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Asilvering Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant that to go to @Asilvering not @Amigao! See above. tldr; remove AfD. 216.147.124.84 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was wondering if this IP was a WP:LOUTSOCK. -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that these IPs are coming from a SpaceX location. Don't know the connection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I suspect that just means "IP is using starlink".) -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, it's a Starlink IP. That said, what about the AfD though? 216.147.124.84 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per others. Not a WP:NPOL pass, but just enough significant RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:54, 25 September 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. asilvering (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy, Indiana

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

Another rail point that apparently someone hoped would become a town, but "platted" does not inevitably lead to "constructed", and there's no sign there was ever anything other than station that apparently held the first post office. McCoy is a common name so lots of false hits, exacerbated by a "Lake McCoy" to the northeast, which of late seems to have been the subject of local political problems which paywalls unfortunately block my knowledge of. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 13 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!} 03:19, 20 September 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!} 02:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Christman

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

Article is sourced to the subject's website and to her employer's website. No independent secondary sources are in the article. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sources yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nonexistence of independent secondary sources noted in the nomination would not be a problem for some criteria of WP:PROF. But most criteria of PROF are not a good fit for academics in the performing arts (rather than the scholarship of art) and we don't have evidence that she passes any of those criteria. I think we are going to have to look for WP:ARTIST notability instead. Her faculty profile [26] (informative but not independent and therefore not contributory to GNG-notability) name-drops multiple reviewers of Christman's performances, says she "has sung leading roles too numerous to mention", and "has been a soloist many times at the Kennedy Center". Can we turn up in-depth published reviews of her performances?? Maybe User:Gerda Arendt (knowledgeable about sourcing for opera performers) might be interested in finding better sources for this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have started adding in coverage of her work. So far the best source is the 1991 in depth article from the Washington Post.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffodilOcean (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McLellan, Josepth (June 29, 1991). "HOME IS WHERE THE SOPRANO IS". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-09-20.

Keep: I was pinged. I didn't know her, but it looks like a woman who had influence in teaching, which I think we should welcome. Sources I found immediately are
- academic bio
- looking at her teaching
While not exactly independent, they list many items we might search for. Queen of the Night at The New York City Opera is a major achievement, described by the NYT as "A strong Performance". With the reviews added: notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this and this. Singers her name in bios. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets minimum requirements concerning notability. Well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 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 01:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefsky

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are mainly primary, and the ones that aren't are (1) an obituary, (2) Find a Grave, (3) an article about an exhibition of his letters to a pen pal, (4) a couple of notices about a tribute by one of his students. None of the sources are about him in any significant way. ... discospinster _talk 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should've submitted for review. There are three newspaper articles concerning his work or renditions of it, two concerning performances of his poems by Northwestern, and another about an exhibit of his work after his death. Though I can easily link others. He seems to be congruent with a notable academic or creative figure. Hypnosef (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added further sources, let me know if more is still required Hypnosef (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hypnosef (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree that none of the sources pertain to him in any significant way.

Source #5 fourteeneastmag.com details "the touring exhibition Poet to Poet: Living Letters, a 13-year correspondence between poet Abe Louise Young and poet Alan Shefsky. Their friendship was preserved in loose leaf papers of written word before Shefsky died from a brain tumor." The source explicitly pertains to his being a poet and his dying of a brain tumor. 2. #6 chicago tribune, details the two's friendship, their long correspondence, and his death from cancer. 3. prizer arts and letters, states that this touring exhibition travelled to Austin, Texas. 4. Sources 8&9 are his poems published in a well-known literary journal. The find a grave and obit were simply to establish birth and death years as they were less readily available than other information. I have also added ten different publications that thank Shefsky by name, though many more exist. These should be sufficient to establish his lasting impact in the academic community. He was a very well-known figure at Northwestern for years.

Hypnosef (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any other input? Hypnosef (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors here and a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz! Not sure how to get more opinions in here, but I'll acquiesce to whatever the group decision is. However, I'm certainly of the opinion that the topic is worthy of an article. He was a local poet of decent renown that I read a lot in my teenage years. Hypnosef (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo

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

In short: This proposal is to delete the Neo Geo page, merging the content into SNK and Neo Geo (system), then moving Neo Geo (system) to Neo Geo. Reason: The Neo Geo platform is notable, while the Neo Geo brand is not. This change also alleviates confusion for readers between two similar articles.

In long: Neo Geo was an arcade platform released by SNK in 1990. SNK also produced two home console variations of their arcade hardware so consumers could play the same arcade games at home (Neo Geo AES and Neo Geo CD). And in recent years, they have released several devices that emulate the original Neo Geo hardware (e.g. Neo Geo X, Neo Geo Mini). All these devices play the exact same library of 150 or so Neo Geo games. This hardware format is usually what people are talking about when they say "Neo Geo". This is the subject of Neo Geo (system).

Meanwhile, SNK also used the "Neo Geo" name for two completely different products:

Hyper Neo Geo 64: A largely forgotten about arcade platform with seven released games.
Neo Geo Pocket & Pocket Color: Handheld consoles with their own shared library

There is not much to say about Neo Geo as a brand name, bridging the original platform and the two products mentioned above. This is evidenced by the current Neo Geo page being mostly just a list of SNK hardware with little commentary on it as a brand. Sources usually do not discuss them together, unless speaking in context of the history of SNK. Even SNK themselves segregates Pocket Color games from proper Neo Geo games when it comes to re-release collections, as with Neo Geo Pocket Color Selection.

So, I'm recommending to take the Neo Geo platform content (MVS, AES, CD, and retro emulation devices) out of Neo Geo and merge it into Neo Geo (system). At the same time, any commentary of Neo Geo as a broader SNK hardware brand could be summarized in a section at SNK. Once that's done, delete Neo Geo and move Neo Geo (system) under that name. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support (delete + merge) per reasons you stated and I initially suggested. Sceeegt (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: If this proposal passes, do not delete Neo Geo until merge has been complete. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:56, 22 September 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!} 02:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Dudes

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

Nominating because I do not believe it fits WP:GNG. TheHatster (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator has not evaluated the sources already existing in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems at least two very good sources have mentions of it, which is close enough to call it notable. I have some pity on this, as it seems like a bit of internet arcana that should be noted somewhere. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Bluethricecreamman it's a shame that there isn't better resources for these kind of articles. But it does have just enough to be notable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Maria Goretti's School

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

I don’t see how the school is related to Maria Goretti so that could be a false move. No reference on the article to proof notability and while I decided to search and see if I could help there wasn’t any source to proof notability. Gabriel (……?) 00:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 00:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not suitable for academics and educators. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe Would you mind explaining what you mean by that please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This AfD page is for academics and educators, not for schools. Delete because sources are inadequate for schools. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: From my research, this is not just a Port Harcourt school, it is an international school, this means that it is not only in Nigeria. Even in Nigeria, it is not only in PH, but also in Sagamu, Owerri, Benin, Lagos, etc. I found all these from searches. This looks likes what passes WP:NSCHOOL, still doing my diggings. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VWF, let me know when you find something. Best, Reading of Beans 07:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find any source to establish notability. Best, Reading of Beans 07:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, the subject contain no references to pass WP:Notable Tesleemah Talk 07:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable academic institution that doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:24, 23 September 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.

[:0-1] McLellan, Josepth (June 29, 1991). "HOME IS WHERE THE SOPRANO IS". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-09-20.

[1]