Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 16

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!} 19:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Maisam Nazary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Highly WP:BLP concerns especially with the sourcing, which doesn't clarify or meet WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. In general view of this discussion, the article doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What elements of the article are inadequate in their sourcing? Let's work to improve them before we move to scrap the page outright. Dan Wang (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you so focused on preserving this article? Do you have any benefit? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dan Wang What is your connection with this person and the political organization in which this person is active? (National resistance front) Your focus is only on the National Resistance Front and its individuals. Almost all your edits are related to this organization and its affiliated individuals. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. I would like to draw the attention of the respected admins to this issue. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which policies am I violating (the ones your Talk page is littered with reprimands about)? In the last week alone I've edited a half-dozen different pages, ranging from musicians to American political events. A lot of my edits are indeed on Afghan topics, because I think it's an interesting subject area that merits documentation, and one I've been trying to improve the sourcing for. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the original creator of this article (I've created several over my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor), and I do want to see it preserved—not out of any inordinate attachment, but rather because I believe the de facto foreign minister of a major party to the 50-year-long Afghan conflict meets the notability standards for a Wikipedia page. Dan Wang (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I think if that is why you are creating an article about this man, the topics that should be discussed is his involvement in the conflict, not his early life and schools he graduated from 77.103.192.51 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Good point, I wanted a good base of non-contentious material for the article (since pages touching the Afghan conflict have seen edit wars), but you may be right the ratio of past to recent experience might be a bit off. Dan Wang (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If there should be WP:ATD, then redirect to the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, since he is the foreign minister (still a non notable office). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The figure has been a prominent politician within the opposition for the past few years. His publications in renowned media outlets such as Foreign Affairs Magazine, such as [1] and his many interviews with CNN, Fox News, and France 24 are evident of his major role on the political scene. He has attended many international conferences on behalf of his organization and has had bilateral meetings with many countries. The article must be improved to reflect his current role and achievements, yet deletion is not the right option.

  Aarmeen123 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dan Wang. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet Wikipedia policies.Helal Ahmad Sharifi (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I highlight the peculiarity of an account that’s only one day old joining to chime into this discussion without previously having made any contributions on Wikipedia? Dan Wang (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tressless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All of the citations used in this article are either links to the forum itself, or trivial mentions of the form 'online forums like r/tressless' mentioned in articles about hair loss in general. This is not the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I have looked and I have not been able to find any sourcing that would meet our requirements. This was moved into article space by a draft's creator after the draft was declined, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty uncharitable. It was explained and linked to directly multiple times in both NBC and a *leading* paragraph in NYT, has been in print, and is not merely mentioned in passing as you claim. & don't know if it's against some guideline I didn't see, but the article was moved out of draft after addressing and improving based on feedback, not directly after being declined. Quarkipedia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NBC mentioned it twice. Here are the full quotes:Finasteride is also heavily touted on a popular website called Tressless, which is also an active community on Reddit. andCORRECTION: ( June 10, 2024, 8:10 p.m ET) An earlier version of this article misidentified the website Tressless. It is active on Reddit, but not a Reddit community.. The NY times is similar. That is a textbook example of a trivial mention. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "linked", it's used as a supporting citation in NBC further down the page. And it's the third sentence, and entire second paragraph in an NYT article, including print, it's not tucked into other text. But based on the consistent distortion in your comments today, indiscriminate deletions of useful but pedantically non-compliant text in other articles, and many complaints about you online, I'm guessing you know what you're doing, so ok. Quarkipedia (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether or not sources that contain significant independent coverage exist. Links are irrelevant to that. And making personal attacks is not going to help the situation - only providing sources that meet notability requirements will. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NWEB as all sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i think there is an unbolded Keep argument here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, brief mentions in articles about hair loss are not significant coverage. hinnk (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obersturmmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nom; a malformed PROD with rationaleThis does not seem important enough to warrant its own page. Indeed, on the German language wiki, this information is merely included on the SA page. was removed. I don't see sufficient sourcing, but would not be surprised if sourcing exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sourcing, as with all such ranks, all of which have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sourcing? According to some talk-page comments, the Sturmabteilung didn't have this rank; it's unclear what organization in Nazi Germany did. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no idea what the "plenty of sourcing" Necrothesp is referring to. Almost nothing comes up for this word at all on google scholar, and the hits are to sources that appear to be lists of one kind or another (example), or from very dodgy sources. (For an example, here's the description of one of the books that comes up: "We had to do it. We had to reprint this book. Rarely has a book had such an impact on so many of us here at Ignatius Press. It is one of the most powerful and moving books we have come across. If you can only buy one book this season, this must be the one." This doesn't scream "strong editorial oversight" to me.) We don't mention it on Sturmabteilung either, so it's not a good redirect destination. If anyone does find this plenty of sourcing, please do let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources to show it's important on its own. The topic is better covered in other, broader articles about Nazi paramilitary ranks. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Koukl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability, warning has been in place for over 7 years. I cannot find sources to indicate notability has been attained since the last nomination in 2011, which was closed as no consensus. glman (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Rather prolific author and is talked about a ton in the religious media, but a distinct lack of book reviews in "mainstream" media (for lack of a better word). This [2] review in religious media is typical... Some scattered mentions here [3] or [4]. We'd need more of these last two types of sources for this to have a chance to be notable here. Was hoping this would pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Christianity, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added another reference which squeezes him over the line on WP:GNG. But the Google scholar citations are actually pretty good, including 98 for Tactics. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has good cites for two of his books as per Google Scholar here and coverage in reliable sources such as The Christian Post, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:He's made STR. He's notable. Quote Veteran (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per above. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

DOesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found some coverage:

• 100 years anniversary [5][6]
• Mergers and acquisitions [7][8][9][10][11]
• A visit to the company [12]
• Coverage of their electricity production via PV panels [13]
• Winners of the European Geothermal Innovation Award [14]
• Two profiles on the St. Galler Tagblatt [15][16]

I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:ORG, @Boleyn: what do you think? If the company has been around for 100 years, probably more can be found. Broc (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 50 year profile here as well. Plus above, IMO it is good for NORG. Also an encyclopedia entry on the company's founder and the company (other coverage on the founder). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second review of these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Broc's sources are both reliable and provide non-routine coverage of Jansen, for instance the two articles in St. Galler Tagblatt. Geschichte (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have rewritten the article (NPOV) and added reliable secondary sources. As former resident of the Canton of St. Gallen, I know about the good reputation and the importance of Jansen AG for the Rheintal. However, I don't have any connection with this company.--BBCLCD (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example:

• This and this is simple company registration information and company filings. All of the content has been provided by the company, this is not "Independent Content" as per the requirement above. Fails ORGIND.
• This is about winning an award but this is not a notable award, it is a niche industry award. Fails ORGTRIV notability criteria. The article itself does not provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
• This in Tagblatt reports on some company restructuring. I am unable to read the entire article at this time, perhaps somebody can report on whether the content provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
• This in Rheintaler is based entirely on an announcement/Press Release and fails ORGIND
• This in Rhein24 is a report on a party thrown to celebrate 100 years in business but it relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs/attendees, this is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.

I've no doubt this company exists and is a well respected company in their field, but I am unable to locate any sources that meet our criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spider-Man and X-Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Could possibly redirect to Panini Comics, but I would be wary of a merge/redirect as this is unsourced. Sounds like it could be notable, but I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to confirm it. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to the content of this article, the comic is not some unique story, but simply combines two previously published comics due to logistical inconsistencies. It didn't get any media attention and wasn't an important thing. I haven't found any mentions except in the fandom, and nothing important there either. I don't think there's even talk of a merger with Panini Comics, because WP:NOTCATALOG--Saul McGill (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 23:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I had an undisclosed conflict of interest when I created this article. My supervisor has asked me to request that the article be deleted on this basis. I am sorry I created it. I hope this process will be simple. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think you can just tag this article CSD G7 since you were the creator and prime contributor to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rudiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find convincing evidence they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. They have been with more than one record label, so there are several potential redirect targets, though I am not sure which would be preferable. I wouldn't propose a merge as there is no sourced information. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No sources, article does not have an encyclopedic tone. Also I couldn't find how they were notable for a Wikipedia article. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No strong sources, a conversational style, and no clear claim to fame for the band. Waqar💬 15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is a case for WP:NBAND#5, but the search (which the above voters may or may not have conducted) came up a little light. One EP review in Maximum Rocknroll, two sizeable reviews by In Music We Trust as well as another good one by Allmusic. The band predates most of the current Internet Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Geschiste. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to what has been linked, there is another review by AllMusic. toweli (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The source search has probably yielded enough for a pre-Internet band. I see no sign of a WP:BEFORE in the early phase of this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serik Tolbassy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability or SNG. All resume type material with promotional type wording, plus material on companies and organizations that he is affiliated with. Of the 4 references, one is a brief bio, 2 have just mentions of him at an event and one is a forbes listing of him being the 26th or 56th richest man in Kazakhstan. Tagged by others since January. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Christian Malanga. There is a strong consensus that this article's subject does not warrant a standalone article. There is a rough consensus to merge the content to Christian Malanga, and to replace the current article with a redirect to the merge target. The extent of material chosen for merging can be discussed on the merge target's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zaire (government in exile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Do not meet with critera guideline. No centered sources before 2024 Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are arguing for a Merge or a Redirect, please provide a link to the target article you are proposing so that editors don't have to go searching for it. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christian Malanga: Any substantial sources about the subject are discussing Malanga rather than the party itself. United Congolese Party uses very weak sources. Reconrabbit 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete. It meets all notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F1A4:4A00:1102:5373:5075:6C13 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It meets no notability. Panam2014 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe the sources establish notability, please mention specific sources you believe achieve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Christian Malanga. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Christian Malanga. Yue🌙 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Withdrawn by Nominator (non-admin closure)‎ Rorshacma (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring space stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A non-encyclopedic cross categorization of the "List of X with Y" variety. Fictional depictions of space stations is a notable topic, hence our existing article on the subject, but a list simply recording movies that have space stations appearing in them runs afoul of WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - Per the discussion with Jclemens below, I feel like I did not nominate this article with a valid reason, so I am Withdrawing the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Spaceflight. Rorshacma (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• How many others of Category:Lists of films by topic or Category:Lists of films by common content are you planning on deleting next? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While I haven't looked through those, I will say that in many cases a list of things categorized by a topic is different then a list of things categorized by something specific that appeared in them, which is what this list is. This one happened to stick out to me because I know that our Space stations and habitats in fiction article was completely rewritten due to an AFD prompted by it initially being nothing but a list of things with space stations in them. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created this article based on WP:NOTESAL, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." These were the core list reliable sources that justify the nature of this list in the first place:

• "Space Stations in Movies". Rocket City Space Pioneers. Dynetics. Archived from the original on December 17, 2013. Retrieved July 26, 2013.
• Kramer, Miriam (August 8, 2013). "Our 10 Favorite Sci-Fi Space Stations of All Time". Space.com. TechMediaNetwork, Inc.
• Westfahl, Gary (2009). Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Science Fiction Literature. Borgo Press. ISBN 978-1-4344-0356-8.

Looking now, I am not seeing more than the above that I found at the time (2013). It feels on the threshold of notability for me, so I'll let others decide. If the consensus is that there should not be a standalone list, let's at least have a film and/or TV section at Space stations and habitats in fiction highlighting what the above list sources name. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Actually, this indicates that the book Space Stations: The Art, Science, and Reality of Working in Space seems to have a "Space Stations in the Movies and on TV" chapter or section. If we can find more, that would be great. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Science fiction is a specific genre of movie, a subset of which involve a space station, and that subset has been discussed in RS as shown above. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, I don't think that argument really counters the text at WP:CROSSCAT, since it could be plugged in to argue for the examples specifically cited there as things to avoid. The issue is that this is not a list or article on "Space Station Films" (which even if that could be considered a genre, would still likely be better off covered at Space stations and habitats in fiction), but simply a list of movies in which the same object appears at some point (in this case, a space station). As I mentioned above, there's a difference between a list covering films of the same genre or topic (i.e. List of films about horse racing) and one just listing films in which a certain "thing" happens to appear (i.e., List of Films With Horses). Rorshacma (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that everything in WP:CROSSCAT has two entirely unrelated items. Affinity and employment, or cuisine and city, are entirely orthogonal, and naturally do not routinely show up in RS'es because of that lack of association. As Erik pointed out above, this cross-categorization does, much like a book on the best Bagel shops in New York City would render a list of those no longer a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization despite the example in CROSSCAT. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kulwant Singh Rauke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed PROD. My rationale still stand, the subject fails WP:NPOL and there's no evidence that there's a passing of the criteria that constitutes WP:GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Punjab. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creator has made multiple similar articles which fail WP:NPOL, this should be deleted as well. Xoocit (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and activist is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, also failed WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This was well attended and we have well reasoned input arguing for keep/merge/delete and I thank all participants for that. When tying the first two together (as in retention of the information, but an acknowledgement that it may not need to be its own article), there is a slight edge to retention. I'd recommend discussing a merger on the Talk and should that not attain consensus, a renomination could happen. Star Mississippi 01:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent's Camp Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Advertisement for non-notable 12-cabin 'resort'. Sourcing is abysmal, and largely used for off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Wisconsin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I apologize that the article was not developed. It is a 131 year old camp and there is enough information available to write an encyclopedic article like this source about the founder "Charle's Bent" who is not yet in this article 1. They have a history in the Wisconsin lumber industry and deer hunt and harvest. It looks like they were recently featured on the America's Best Restaurants Road Show 2. I also do not think there is anything in this article about their annual music event "Northwoodstock" 3. Probably more to be said about their annual "Radar run" event also 4 Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if it is a resort, should the relevant notability guidelines be WP:NORG? If so, it should probably be added to the appropriate delsort too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear whet the supposed claim to notability even is. As a former logging camp? A camping ground? A place that runs events? A place in the same county as alleged Bigfoot sightings? Hard to tell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to companies. The lead tells us it is a resort in Wisconsin. A resort is a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks, historically it is a place that has had the same name but its use has evolved over a century. Right now it is a campground that hosts major events and also has a lodge. When I went there last year I took photos of the music festival (on commons now) and I also wrote an article on the lake which separates the Wisc and MI (Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)). The photo in the Mamie Lake article is looking away from the lodge at Bent's Camp. I have been editing less these days but I hope to get around to developing the article if it is not deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these 'major events'? Where is the evidence that anyone not seeking to publicise them considers them 'major'. And how can a 12-cabin resort host 'major events' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am dancing as fast as I can. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is the 'major event' you are referring to? [17] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletesee revised merge vote below In addition to the sources in the article, Lightburst gives 3 above. The first is really about Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, but discusses Bent and does confirm that he created a fishing camp with log cabins and dining in 1896. However this is not signifcant coverage under any guideline. The mention of the camp is passing. The second link is not reliable in that it presents different information in different locations of the world. In any case it appears to be simply news about a restaurant (if you are an American consumer). The last link is an announcement. That is certainly a primary source. So we have nothing. No notability for a standalone article. Next question is whether a merge or redirect is appropriate. The most likely merge target is to the stub at Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). However I cannot see why that article subject is notable either, albeit that it would be considered under the much laxer WP:GEOLAND. I also considered redirect to Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, as this is what the source above is about. However it is not really Bent's Camp Resort that is discussed there. Rather, it is Bent who would be of sufficient note for a mention. At this point, I don't see any benefit in a redirect that outweighs the disbenefit of Wikipedia promotionally mentioning non notable businesses. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article; it’s an advertisement with footnotes. Qwirkle (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been canvassed offline by the nominator. It occurred on WPO in a thread titled "Crap Articles". The entry in that thread by the nominator says, "Bent's Camp Resort (T-H-L) Another masterpiece by Lightburst...". So it looks like this article will be deleted before I can add research about the history of the place; it would be nice to have this sent to draft or user space. If that cannot be done I understand. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any sign of canvassing. Everyone who has commented so far is an AfD regular. But if you are saying there are sources that demonstrate notability, you only need to show they exist, and you have a week to do it. Deletion is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy I understand, thanks for your consideration. I have no desire to edit for the time being. This is not a "woe is me" post, but I have to admit to myself that I had enough of the project for now. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thanks, You are right, and I am sorry that it reads like a travel guide. I did argue for WP:NEXIST but hunting down sources is not on my schedule right now. If editors think this place should not be on Wikipedia I have to accept that. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a travel brochure, this is an article about a regional institution that has been around since at least the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think this is likely a bad faith nomination. It's a fairly close call, GNG wise — being in operation for over a century, it is quite likely there is undiscovered sourcing out there. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is an article from the Vilas County News of May 23, 1923 calling Bent's Camp the 4th oldest resort at that time and printing a photograph of it from the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an obituary for Austin Bent, son of Charles Bent, and for a time proprietor of Bent's Camp. It includes significant detail about the ownership of the business over time. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND HERE we have a short piece from the Green Bay Press-Gazette on a petition over the expansion of Bent's Camp in 1965. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is a very substantial piece from the Madison Capital Times on the Bent's Camp expansion controversy, which had drawn in a member of the Wisconsin Conservation Commission. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've seen enough here, plus the footnotes showing in the piece, to get this one over the GNG bar. This is not commercial propaganda, this is a piece about living Americana, a historical site heading towards 150 years in operation. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN on the middle-1960s development controversy, this time noting that the case had gone all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND THIS PIECE, entitled "North Needs Financing to Save Its Old Resorts," puts the Bent's Camp development controversy into historical context, as indicative of problems being suffered by other fishing resorts of the region. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You may have demonstrated that a worthwhile article might be written about this, but what was actually written belongs on one of those display stands of shiny cardstock brochures about local tourist traps. Whether better sourcing makes this worth an article, or space in another article, is still an open question. Qwirkle (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qwirkle we meet again - twice in one night. Can we can consider WP:NEXIST as demonstrated by the Carrite sources? It is late here but I can try to find time to add them to the article tomorrow. Or another editor may add them. Thanks for considering. Lightburst (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sirfurboy, Brandon, Qwirkle, TarnishedPath to consider the above. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment as this is all a bit too spicy for my tastes. Brandon (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite on review of the analysis that @Sirfurboy has compiled below I don't see any reason to change my delete !vote, unless something changes. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thank you to Carrite who found sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Like others here, I came from the ANI. Bruxton (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - source assessment Carrite has spent considerable effort finding mention of this business in old newspapers using Newspapers.com. Many thanks for spending the time and effort to do that. On first glance I thought at least one of these was good: a review that talks about the camp. However, the depth of the review must be considered against the appropriate guidelines, and on that score, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:NORG guideilines describe what is required for significant coverage in CORPDEPTH which says:

I have thus produced the following source assessment table for these new sources. Note that this is my own assessment only.

Note that under NORG we need multiple sources, and each source must individually meet WP:SIRS. I don't think any of these do. If someone were inclined to accept the first, you would still need multiple such sources. So we are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Almost completely sourced by primary sources, and, as Sirfurboy has pointed out above, there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to meet notability requirements. Articles are only as good as their sources allow, and what there isn't reliable. Easy delete.--Panian513 20:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the material User:Carrite brought in hasn't changed my mind that this current article doesn't belong in mainspace, but has, I think made the case that the subject is a little more important than this article would show. Maybe not as a standalone, but as an expanded part of LoL or the Cisco lakes and so forth. Maybe draftify it for now? Qwirkle (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Wegner, Robert (2008). Classic Deer Camps. Iola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications. pp. 101–115. ISBN 978-0-89689-655-0. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.

     Bent's Camp Resort is covered on pages 101–115 of the book. The book notes: "Bent’s Camp remains a classic example of how man converted the antique, quaint lumber camps of the old lumbering era into romantic deer camps and recreational resorts of the early twentieth century; how these old time lumber camps became great enclaves of manliness and refined sportsmanship with a pronounced wildlife conservation ethic. Yet women also emerged into this rustic atmosphere as well, as we see in those two great deer hunting photos of Lizzy Bent with her classic Winchester rifle in hand and Henry and Ruth Voss posing with their trophy whitetail at Manitowish Waters—two photos shown in the Wisconsin Public Television Documentary "A State of Escape." Bent's Camp still exists today in all its magnificent splendor; in the interior of the camp with its beautiful, sapling wainscoating deer hunters still converse, tell stories, and in the North Woods around the camp reconnect with the ancient rhythms of nature."

  2. Hintz, Martin; Percy, Pam (2014). Williams, Tracee (ed.). Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-7627-9214-6. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Dating from 1906, Bent's has the appropriate look of a bygone era, with its rustic decor including birch bark, held in place by cedar-bark strips, lining the ceiling and walls. Photos from the early days of Bent's Camp Jare everywhere, including on the menu. Almost everything has a homemade touch, from the vegetables grown on-site to the handmade pizza. Steaks and roast duck are specialties, with nightly specials. Pork chops, ribs, and yellowfin tuna earn raves from ravenous visitors, in from a day of fishing. Speaking of fins, Bent's Friday fish fry attracts a big crowd. Breakfast is served Saturday and Sunday with a Bloody Mary bar available starting at the wee hour of 8 a.m. Early every August, Bent's hosts its Northwoodstock festival, with live music all day and lots of food and beer. This self-proclaimed "hippie hoe down" is good for laughs, plenty of hamburgers, and several rounds of brew."

  3. Westervelt, Amy (2012). Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 175, 178. ISBN 978-1-58157-138-7. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The book notes: "Just over the Wisconsin border, in Land O’Lakes, Bent’s Camp (715-547-3487; www.bents-camp .com; $$$, closed Tuesdays in winter) offers a similar sort of experience. A former logging camp turned into a popular fishing resort, Bent’s also features an outstanding restaurant, famous for its Friday fish fry, Saturday prime rib, juicy roast duck, and homemade pizzas. Located in the main lodge of the resort, Bent’s Camp restaurant features wood tables in a large wooden, open-beam interior decorated with Native American trinkets and local hunting trophies. The restaurant has its own dock for those boating in for a meal. The Friday fish fry is renowned throughout the region, so plan on getting there early or waiting awhile if you want to find out what the big fuss is about—it's worth it."

  4. Gauper, Beth (2005-02-13). "Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The article provides 233 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Not far away, near the Michigan border west of Land O' Lakes, Bent's Camp began life in 1896 as a camp for sportsmen, brought over from the railroad landing in a wooden scow called the Tar Baby. A log restaurant was built in 1906, with interior walls covered by thick squares of birch bark held in place by cedar strips. Today, it's one of the north woods' most treasured spots. In the bar, old photos illustrate the resort's early history and a fire crackles in the stone fireplace; diners sit in a room lined with paned windows overlooking Mamie Lake or in the wood-paneled big room, under the gaze of a giant stag head. It's as far off the beaten path as it can be, but the specials when I was there were pure uptown -- Chilean sea bass with a langoustine cream sauce, duck confit and a delectable phyllo-wrapped lamb with gorgonzola, rosemary and garlic. ... Bent's Camp near Land O' Lakes, Wis.: This is a great destination even for a beer, ..."

  5. Bawden, Timothy (2001). Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 115.ProQuest 231652918. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The PhD thesis notes: "Charles Bent, a logger and lumberman from Oconto County, came to Vilas County in 1893 to homestead 67 acres of densely forested land on the shore of Lake Mamie, located 12 miles west of State Line (Land O' Lakes). The timber was so thick that a 40 acre tract produced a million feet of pine. Bent cleared some of the land in that first year and used the logs to build a main lodge and a few other buildings for his resort, naming it Bent's Camp. He eventually built his property into an impressive resort that included a main lodge, 12 cottages, a guide's quarters, stables, and ice and boat houses. The resort could accommodate 75 guests by 1915, which was almost twice the average at the time.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bent's Camp Resort to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 5 of this list look interesting. Still trying to get the first book. The first is unavailable to borrow just now - do you still have it out? I need to read the last still. The middle three are not going to pass CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) - Cunard adds five sources above, and again thanks for the efforts on this. One of these, I suspect is a very good source, but I cannot review it, as below. I would be happy to admit that the hobbyist book, Classic Deer Camps is likely to provide significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. The others I discount as I do not believe they meet CORPDEPTH. To show the notability of a business there needs to be more than directory style information, or basic history. This then leaves us short of the multiple WP:SIRS sources we need. However, on Wegner's book alone, I think we, per WP:FAILORG, have sufficient information that there should be mention of the camp on Wikipedia. I thus have revised my above delete !vote to a merge. The stub at Mamie Lake would be the best merge target, and a merge there would improve that page, retain the information about the camp on Wikipedia, and provide an appropriate place to add other such information. My assessment of the sources provided by Cunard is below.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out, I believe the "Classic Deer Camps" reference contains so many pages because most of those are photographs. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Sirfurboy, I've found if you click on the arrows beside the page number, you can still see the pages of the book "Classic Deer Camps" (except maybe the first time you click but click again and they're available). From reading the available pages, arguably there isn't much by way of direct in-depth information but in my opinion there is sufficient information provided in an indirect manner. For example, much of the content is about a family named "Clow" and how they used Bent's camp as a base, sprinkled among this text is enough information to provide descriptions of various parts of the camp. Similarly on page 108 it mentions other "characters" that "hung out" at the camp and on page 109 it mentions the early years of the 20th century when the camp became a public resort charging $8 a week for board but that come deer-hunting season, the Clow deer-hunting clan took over. And so on. I think your analysis is correct, the book meets the criteria. That said, we need another source before the topic can be said to be notable. Have to also mention that on page 215 of this book, it lists other sources of information for Bent's Camp, which you can see in Google Books view of "Classic Deer Camps" HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm only able to identify one single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, being the first book in Cunard's list. None of the others meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:PERX. This isn't a !vote count. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What else am I supposed to say besides "I think Cunard's sources show that it is notable"? Of course it isn't a vote count but is there a need to rehash things when someone else has already said what I think? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a discussion. Which of Cunard's sources show it is notable and is there anything you can add which might rebut the analysis of Sirfurboy which points out why 4 of those sources don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the sources brought forward during this AfD would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The ORGCRIT analysis by Sirfurboy convinces me this does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". significant coverage links to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which says: The sources linked by Carrite (talk · contribs) and me address the subject "directly and in detail".

  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:

  The sources I linked all contain "deep coverage" through providing an overview and description of the resort. The current version of the Wikipedia article is not a "very brief, incomplete stub", which disproves the assertion that "we stil have nothing beyond the information sufficient for a very brief stub".

  Coverage of the restaurant that is a core part of the resort is coverage of the resort. It is illogical to exclude discussion of the resort's restaurant from contributing to significant coverage about the resort. The Saint Paul, Minnesota-based St. Paul Pioneer Press is not "local press" of a resort in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The sources are all independent of the subject and published by reputable publishers. There is no evidence that the coverage in The Countryman Press and Globe Pequot Press books were "placed for payment" or that the company wrote the content.

  Here are additional sources I found:

  1. Rose, Hailey (2022-06-09). "A Historic Wisconsin Destination: Bent's Camp". Discover Wisconsin. Archived from the original on 2024-07-20. Retrieved 2024-07-20.

     The review notes: "Bent’s Camp was established in 1896 by Charles Bent, an avid outdoor enthusiast of sport fishing and hunting. He created the resort to preserve the Northwoods in all its glory for all to love and enjoy as much as he did. Since its establishment, it has been seen as a fantastic fishing attraction and still is today."

  2. Hass, Kortnee (2021-07-14). "A Northwoods Retreat: Bent's Camp". Discover Wisconsin. Archived from the original on 2024-07-20. Retrieved 2024-07-20.

     The review notes: "In 1896, Bent's was established as a place for sport fishing and hunting and still to this day is discovered by new women and men everyday. Charles Bent was known for his deep love of the Northwoods and all he did to try to help protect and improve it for the others to come! The lodge was then built in 1906 and as we mentioned before, started off being used for various things but was primarily used as a place to serve the guests food."

  3. Wegner, Robert (November 2003). "Bent's Camp". Wisconsin Outdoor Journal. Vol. 17, no. 8. pp. 24–29.

     The source is listed here in Wegner's book.

  4. Davis, Mark Henry (1997). An Empire in Waiting: Northern Wisconsin's Lake Country, 1880–1940 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 262.ProQuest 304416611.

     The PhD thesis notes:

  Cunard (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I'm convinced by Sirfurboy's and HK's analyses above. No number of passing mentions, like the couple-sentence blurbs cited above, amounts to the second SIRS source needed to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sirfurboy's arguments are convincing. Others less so. ——Serial Number 54129 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the source analysis tables listed above. Generally routine coverage and passing mentions. Frank Anchor 13:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hopelessly indiscriminate/random/subjective collection: here says they found 380 thousand different surnames in Russia, of which core of 14 thousand surnames are used by 70% of the population... And with a misleading title: it lists only east slavic surnames, while there are plethora non-slavic people in Russia from the times of Russian Empire and Soviet Union: not a single surname ending in -shvili and only one ending in -dze, no one ending in -yan/-ian i.e., Georgian surnames and Armenian surnames are thoroughly not represented. In is poorly maintained: I removed a couple obviously hoax (OK, mayby typos by nonslavic editors; AGF to them). Even slavic surnames are far from being complete: I immediately failed to find the surnames of my favorite writers: Ilf, Strugatsky, Nabokov Akunin, Zoshchenko, Bulychev, as well as other well known surnames Schmidt/Shmidt, Goldfarb, no Zeitlin/Tseitlin/Tseytlin, good thing there is Abramovich :-) ; there are Tkachenko and Tkachyov, but no Tkachuk. For some reason there are both Pelevin and Pelyovin listed, but there are hundreds of other e/yo spelling variants missing ..... And so on, and so for. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: might be related, at least in spirit, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan, another grand undertaking regarding names in this region. Geschichte (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lists of this size are far too unwieldy for WP:LISTPURP-NAV to to be a good argument for keeping. Although the list topic itself undoubtedly meets WP:NLIST, I think this is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and so should be deleted. BrigadierG (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the current article violates the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy as it purports, through implication, a listing of all surnames of people living in Russia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't do anything more than Category:Russian-language surnames except add a lot of redlinks (and give Russian spellings). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to wiktionary, which does maintain these types of lists (although with the shortcomings you mention). (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Much too unwieldy and indiscriminate, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a random collection of surnames found within Russia, and there are several alternatives as mentioned above, such as Wikt and categories. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to make a single assumption why this exists. WP:NOTCATALOG. Vorann Gencov (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need of this database. Azuredivay (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. and "WP:N" isn't a sufficient deletion rationale argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditty (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"WP:N" Bulklana (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Environment, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: As is evidenced on the current article, Ditty has been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works", meeting the first criteria in WP:NMUSIC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Against a bare minimum nominating statement, WP:SIGCOV in The Hindu, Rolling Stone India, Indian Express, the Business Standard and other outlets show she passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vennli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Coverage in purely local sources or from alumni publications does not contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Indiana. – Teratix ₵ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:NCORP and is purely promotional. - Amigao (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. All coverage is local (WP:AUD requires coverage in at least one broader-scope publication for NCORP), in WP:TRADES publications or otherwise in WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Vaughan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

So what exactly makes this guy notable? Being the son of Michael Vaughan, is all I can tell. He hasn't played cricket at a senior level and hasn't done anything of note in cricket to warrant inclusion. No amount of WP:ROUTINE refbombs can hide that he is a WP:GNG fail. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t understand whether he has already played for Somerset and the England U19 to pass WP:NCRIC, but signing a contract with the club and being called up to the U19 team is being covered in the media, which indicates the passage WP:SIGCOV. I will list several secondary sources, you can easily find more [30][31][32] Tau Corvi (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that notable? Plenty of people get signed by major sports teams and never go onto do anything. Is the bar really set this low? Again, if his father wasn't a famous cricketer, he would not get any coverage. AA (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article was moved to mainspace via Afc. Subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage in established media including BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, The Daily Telegraph The Independent, ESPNCricinfo etc. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug02 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NCRIC. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 Engineer Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. There is a lack of independent references provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any unit with a 113-year history is likely to be notable. Lack of independent references is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find independent sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As one would expect for such an old unit, there's numerous references to the unit in the media throughout the wars. Even a 1946 book, and discussion in numerous other books about operations in both World Wars as they participated in battles like Vimy Ridge and on Juno Beach on D-Day. The German execution of three captured prisoners (2 from this unit) at the hands of Wilhelm Mohnke in 1944 gets media attention, such asProQuest 239462705 and also discussed in a book. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert‎ to this version, which I have done. I have not applied rev del, but no objection should another admin find it necessary. Star Mississippi 01:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWAD-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was marked as {{db-hoax}} by Myrabert01. Not sure whether it is a hoax or not, but it is certainly unsourced and was until recently about a different station of the same name. Expert attention needed to decide what should be done here. See also the talk page. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the (blocked) page creator's talk page and other contributions certainly makes "hoax" look very likely. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I see trouble ahead. The details in the infobox do not make sense to anyone who understands the history of All TV or ABS-CBN. Even if this wasn't a hoax, I'd have problems with sourcing and possible existence thereof. I am pinging one user whom I trust to have the final word: WayKurat. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert, then delete or redirect to a list of ABS-CBN transmitters. Even de-hoaxing it does not provide significant coverage to work from. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to older version This is the last stable version of this article, before it was bombarded with hoax information by several IP editors. Deleting this article should not be done since the hoax edits were just made last June 2024. -WayKurat (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to older version and if need be, apply revision deletion to hoax edits (may be covered under criteria RD2 and/or RD3) as a form of denying recognition with regards to whatever they're up to. -Ian Lopez @ 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. (per A2). This was merely a cut and paste copy of an article from another language Wikipedia with NO attempt at translation. I'll make no comment on the merits of this process. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shooting ranges in Akershus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As noted in discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting ranges in Norway, this fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. It's a nice list and interesting geodata... but not encyclopaedic content. Hemmers (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Tagged with WP:A2, but agree this is a directory of non-notable places. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages; almost all of these don't have stand-alone articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as I mentioned in the shooting ranges in Norway AfD. Ajf773 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News9 Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

AfDed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News9Live Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt This current version is blatantly promotional compared to the original version ("News9 Mediaverse umbrella"?!) and N is still not met at all. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are comprised of a few questionable websites, some of which are "News9" sites. Not notable. Ternera (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G4 BrigadierG (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, Poor sources with no significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) on the channel. clearly fails WP:NCORP. Youknow? (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Tanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTRESUME. Fails WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Initially, I tried to draftify the page, but there is already a rejected draft in existence. Charlie (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poor sources. The businessman's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO RangersRus (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, also the articles look like a resume. Youknow? (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czech Republic at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lejsek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge as I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. I've checked corresponding Wikipedia article in other languages, especially the Czech one that might help copy over English article, but none of them provide significant coverage on him. One-time Olympics participant, Lejsek was not even one of the three luge medalists in pre-mentioned tournament either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. World Championships participant in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023. European Championships participant in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. (According to Whatlinkshere, haven't clicked them yet.) Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. I also didn’t find any RS that would show passing WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search turned up no focused coverage, just passing mentions in coverage about projects he was associated with in some way. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR as his roles are mostly non-significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot establish WP:NACTOR as well. Even the roles he is “famous for” are supporting. Vorann Gencov (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of permanent Ambisonic playback systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory this article contains very few internal links to notable articles, all that is included is external links, which has become a means of promotion. There is nothing encyclopedic about this article that is currently worth saving VViking_TalkEdits 14:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Appears promotional and has no sources. Ternera (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This whole article is one long mess, which if you look at the talk page has been very contentious for years. It's heavily biased in many ways and doesn't appear to have any clear rules regarding what is actually included. It describes itself as a list of events with a "measurable drop in human population" yet also contains many events with as few as 40 deaths, and repeats itself at multiple points, such as listing "Various Fascist/Marxist leaders" as distinct events along with each major leader as a unique event. All in all this article is unnecessary, as it contains nothing that is not duplicated on other better articles such as List of wars by death toll. I fully believe WP:TNT applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is entirely WP:SYNTH, and redundant to such lists as List of wars by death toll that provide more detail than you can get from two numbers and their geometric mean (which is not properly justified by what I can acess from Ref. ). The list also improperly adds figures with varying precision as if they were exact. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with previous justification. Figures are arbitrary and calculations are via unvalidated means for the presentation of scholarly data. "Measurable drop" is vague. Any drop is measurable. Greyspeir (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD closes as delete, can the talk page and its subpages be preserved at this AfD's talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a huge mess indeed. Wikipedia is not a directory. Vorann Gencov (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Clean up. This article is necessary to prove the point, what toxic species mankind is. Category with environmental casualties should be added. RobiH (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to "prove a point", certainly not a biased one such as that. The article isn't notable as a concept in itself and is purely a copy of parts of better existing articles. CoconutOctopus talk 09:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This article can be made into something sensible, but it needs a cleanup before it's in mainspace. Dege31 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The NLIST and NOTTRIVIA arguments have not been meaningfully rebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian prime ministerial firsts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. Along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going with your logic shouldn't we just delete List of Mexican presidential firsts, List of Philippine presidential firsts, and List of United States presidential firsts as well? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. BrigadierG (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then move them to articles for deletion as well. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a significant coverage about the Indian prime ministerial firsts. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you have in mind? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just run a search and you'll find out. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed this article on your will.

You need to make sure you CITE YOUR SOURCES and make sure your English is professional and encyclopedic.

Thanks, GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Dabral, I have specifically performed a WP:BEFORE as expected to when nominating this article. I did not find anything discussing the category of "Indian prime ministerial firsts" in depth, just examples of individual instances being described as a prime ministerial first. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I presume that the sources you are thinking of fall into the latter category, which is not enough to meet WP:LISTN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to keep those few material related to individual instances and remove the rest, instead of deleting the whole article? Because this article has potential to be developed properly. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for WP:NOTTRIVIA. We should also likely delete the other "Presidential Firsts" list articles for rhe same reason. CoconutOctopus talk 06:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Purely going by the fact that List of United States presidential firsts exists and the article is on similar lines to that. Xoocit (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSE _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are just comical straw man arguments you are giving, I dont know about Canada but an Indian prime minister's visit to Israel is significant enough to highlight, given the fact that previous governments had a policy to not recognise Israel in favour of their pro-Palestine policy. This was a significant shift in the foreign policy. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The List of Indian prime ministerial firsts fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. RangersRus (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the article, I feel there are several important and key facts that are noteworthy regarding Prime Ministers of India; however, I do see some uncited firsts listed and I feel the introductory paragraph is not Wikipedia based. Therefore, I would say keep the article, but make sure that the statements are not too specific, and as obvious, they are cited with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyFanNHL (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article originally was mine. But another user merged it and changed it on their will.

I suggest to restore my version of the article. I cited sourced, and made everything under Wikipedia Policies. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs)

Contrary to these assertions, the prior version of the article (I presume Special:PermaLink/1218109595 corresponds to the juncture GHDNA is referring to) does not address the failure to meet WP:LISTN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts, selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Failure to meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Many entries in this list seem to fall into the category of trivia rather than providing any encyclopaedic value. The relevance of distinctions such as "First Prime Minister to keep beard" does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the Prime Minister's role or impact on India’s political history. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Akinwunmi Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no enough reliable sources to establish WP:PRODUCER. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He wrote a book which is currently used as a text/guidebook at the study centre in PAU, this should help him pass WP:NAUTHOR 4c or thereabout. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Subject fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable source that are independent of the subject. The only reliable source here was that he donated a non notable book to a University. Book sources are even looking like a WP:FORUM.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gabriel601, I noticed that you make speedy keep and speedy delete !votes these days, have you read the guidelines on how and when to use these? Best, Reading Beans 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through that again but not this days like it’s been happening. Thanks for the word anyways. Corrected.--Gabriel (……?) 08:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A clear attempt at promotion for his company and personal endeavors. He is visible in a fair number of standard online promotional sites, but Wikipedia is not a part of that world. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Bajtoš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another long-unsourced stub regarding a Slovak men's footballer who played a total of 47 minutes before suddenly disappearing in 1999. SME might be the best reliable secondary source that mentions his name, but it's only in an image caption which does not count towards significant coverage. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is from ye olden times and is not satisfactory with current guidelines. The false information about 47 minutes is a misinterpretation of 47 matches in the Czechoslovak First League, and he did of course have a longer career before and after that even though WorldFootball has not recorded it. But someone has to have recorded something in order to have a Wikipedia article. This piece is an overview of his career. It's a good start, and there are more in pre-Internet media, but I don't know how to find it. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. That article linked by Geschichte appears in the Czech-language version of the page. It is a good start. The link from Clariniie suggests he played in European competitions in the 1994–95 season on top of the league matches. Sources likely exist. I was able to find details of his performances in the Czechoslovak First League: 1990–91 season, 1991–92 season (didn't play), 1992–93 season for 42 appearances and 6 goals. Will add more if I am unable to uncover further sources. C679 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 05:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Due to the lack of sources. If there are new sources that are possible for WP:V, I change the vote. Svartner (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Special:WhatLinksHere/International_Anarchist_Congresses showed the redirects and the sections they targeted. I cleaned up a bunch that should have been pointing to Anti-authoritarian International article sections. czar 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Per above, I think we can re-scope this into a list with a table and sources. Agreed that the First International congresses should be described as precursors rather than anarchist congresses. If the list doesn't shape into anything coherent, I think we can revisit deletion. czar 02:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firmex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, and the one WP:GNG-worthy reliable source (The Globe and Mail, "A virtual smoke-filled room") is a deadlink I had to go into ProQuest to recover, only to find that it glances off the existence of Firmex in the process of being principally about a different company altogether, which means it isn't about Firmex and thus doesn't clinch the notability of Firmex all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus van der Vaart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a businessperson, and not found independent, reliable sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I agree with nom. The article does not give a reason for notability; significant coverage in independent sources is not available. All I can find are self-published and related sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Following PamD's edits, the page is a valid disambiguation page and the delete !votes do not actually refute the rationale for keeping. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Chocolate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no Wikipedia pages by this title to disambiguate. Gjs238 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Originally a DAB someone created for their favorite person. None of the current listings therein are pertinent enough to be here. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, absolutely no reason to keep a DAB with no pages linked. CoconutOctopus talk 14:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing vote to a weak Keep since User:PamD's edits. CoconutOctopus talk 10:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  but its funny : 64.35.198.163 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim: the entry for Ryan Sidebottom needs to be removed unless a source is supplied in his article, and the song line at the end is probably not appropriate, but with a fictional band, a nicknamed wrestler and a song this seems a valid dab page. There is no need for there to be a Wikipedia page by this title, for this to be a valid dab page. PamD 07:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, falling down a Wiki rabbit-hole, I've sourced Sidebottom's nickname and that is a valid dab page entry. PamD 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete supposed to be disambiguation page? But cannot see any reason this should exist, really. WP:PARTIAL most certainly applies here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one entry could possibly be considered to be WP:PARTIAL, and that is now (much trimmed) a "see also". PamD 22:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The page is a mess, consisting of just a list of references with no pertinent Wikipedia pages to disambiguate. TH1980 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Each entry leads to a page where the term is mentioned: all valid dab page entries. PamD 05:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations4u (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources mentioned in the article are part of regular brand promotions/ interviews/ PRs. No significant coverage from independent sources. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Charlie (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails NCORP. Sources are their comments so not useful. S0091 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Vietnam Airlines. I've also put each continent into separate collapsible tables to avoid having a long article. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

Specifically this is a catalogue of the services of a company and as such is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that"Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company, the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings or Pizza Huts. Any information that is not simply run-of-the-mill is already included at the Vietnam Airlines article.

Other headings under WP:NOT that are failed include WP:NOTTRIVIA (since this is a listing of rapidly-changing temporary company services that can change on a scale of days/weeks), WP:IINFO (since this is an indiscriminate effort to provide a complete listing of all services offered by a company regardless of significance, instead of summarising them), WP:PROMO (since this is effectively an advert for the company's services based on sources controlled ultimately by the company), WP:NOR (since this is the compiling of a list of company services to state things not stated in the original sources - for example that services to Russia are terminated now because they were suspended in 2022, or that services to Tegel were previously operated when the source only says that Tegel is now shut, and more broadly that all of these services are operating now when the sources are only true for the date they were published), WP:NOTGUIDE (since this is effectively a travel guide), WP:NOTNEWS (since this appears to be an attempt to create a list of up-to-the-minute services offered by the company), and WP:CRYSTAL (since nearly every announcement used discusses plans to start doing something in the future, and since dates in the future are included - for example announcements for October 2024).

WP:NCORP is also failed. Most of the listings here are unsourced, and realistically cannot be sourced from anywhere but the company website, press-releases, company spokespeople, or other sources controlled by the company, meaning that it automatically fails WP:ORGIND, because this information cannot be obtained from a source independent of the company.

That this is true can be seen from the sources provided in the article. Going through these one-by-one we get:

1. The Vietnam Airlines website
2. A Saigon Times article about a government announcement about restructuring of the airline that does not mention any destinations
3. A profile in industry-press based entirely on information from the airline
4. The Vietnam Airlines website
5. An industry-press article based on a company press-release
6. A local news story based on a company press-release
7. A link to the Berlin airport website saying that Tegel airport has been shut down - the conclusion that Vietnam airlines ever flew here is not supported and basically OR
8. An announcement about future plans in industry press, with comments from the CEO of Munich airport who are obviously also not independent of the airline as they are a business-partner of theirs
9. An announcement in government-controlled press about flights to India, since Vietnam Airlines is state-owned and managed by a board appointed by the government this is not independent
10. Announcements from the company about future plans relayed via Aeroroutes, which is a blog/industry press, and also not significant coverage since it so short
11. Another Aeroroutes link regarding future plans
12. A short Reuters piece about flights to Moscow being suspended in 2022 based on an announcement in Vietnamese state-owned press - not significant coverage of the topic of the destinations since it is so short and is anyway not reliably and independently sourced. Additionally this does not support the statement that flights are terminated now in 2024 so this is OR.
13. Another brief Aeroroutes link about future plans
14. A Condé Nast travel-magazine article based on a statement from the Vietnam Airlines CEO. Whilst other sources are also quoted in the article, all of these sources ultimately track back to Vietnam Airlines - the Airline Geeks article (industry press/blog) is sourced to a company press release, the Vietnam+ article is sourced to statements by the CEO, the Twitter source is from Vietnam Airlines Twitter account. There is no independent reporting here.
    

As a list split from a larger article, this still needs to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but it clearly does not since it fails the relevant notability guide for company products and services (WP:NCORP). FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Vietnam. FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the numerous WP:NOT violations listed by nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You're making things up:
  • WP:NOTCATALOG says we are not "A resource for conducting business" with significant context and other examples indicating that products and services shouldn't be listed as a way to sell them. This is not a catalogue with the time of day these flights depart and what planes they use. To suggest we cannot provide a list like this with an overly broad reading of that would call for the deletion of all of Category:Lists of products.
  • WP:NOTTRIVIA says nothing about "temporary services". Where an airline flies is not "rapidly-changing". Sure it can change, but it's not that frequent or difficult to understand. We do not have any prohibition on content that can change or be updated, and that's the beauty of a wiki that we can do so. Articles are not expected to be static. As I say below, there may be possibilities for reform rather than complete deletion.
  • This is not indiscriminate. It's clearly defined as places the airline flies or has flown. It's not overly broad or difficult to define.
  • It's not an advertisement and it's patently ridiculous to call this promotional. It's perfectly appropriate to provide a straightforward list of a company's services. Is it a promotional advertisement to list a movie studio's films, a gaming company's products, a brand's flavors, or a train's routes?
  • This is not original research. Indeed, it's poorly sourced, but it's not full of things for which sources are impossible to find or that reach a synthesized conclusion. Sure, the citations for Russia is bad, but this and this are substantive articles about about the flights between Vietnam and Russia, including Vietnam Airlines' route.
  • This is not a travel guide any more than List of Amtrak routes is a travel guide. It does not tell people about how to contact the company or to make a booking, describe the costs and the airline's booking structures, review the seats and flying experience, or give what time of day the flights leave. It's misguided and undercuts your argument to call a simple list of destinations a travel guide.
  • This is not news. It's not original reporting, a routine report about an event only relevant the day it happened or written in news style, or a who's who. This is not something that changes day-in, day-out. It is not "up-to-the-minute" any more than List of Amtrak routes. Hey, the Chicago – St. Paul route just opened on May 21, is this bad to be "up-to-the-minute"? Why would it be a bad thing to be current? This is not something changing so much that editors are unable to keep up and have let it fester with outdated content either. Being cited to news is standard and does not make the list itself news.
  • This is not a crystal ball. It is not forbidden to describe something planned for the future. Saying the route is scheduled to start in October is neither speculation, a rumor, a presumption, nor a prediction. It is easily verifiable, and it's embarassing and weakens your argument to say the article must be deleted because it states a simple, sourced statement about something planned.
  • NCORP is not relevant. Vietnam Airlines is a notable corporation and this is about them and what they do, and this is an appropriate subarticle of the main topic. Being unsourced or poorly sourced is a cleanup issue, not necessarily grounds for deletion.
  • You make the poor comparison to listing Burger King locations. No, we don't need to list the 19,000 stores they have, but we do have Burger King products and List of Burger King products. Selling the products is the service they provide, and taking passengers to these airports is the service Vietnam Airlines provides. Maybe a simple table like this isn't the best way to present the information, but it's not inherently disallowed to have this content.

I agree there are issues with these lists, namely that they list destinations rather than routes. It could be more informative to say that they operate routes from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to Sydney, and between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok, rather than simply that Sydney and Bangkok are destinations. There are other ways this could be restructured or merged, which is why the proposed RFC could be helpful, but I do not believe this violates NOT whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Amtrak routes is a bad comparison - those are railway routes requiring permanent infrastructure to be built and maintained. An airline can schedule and re-scheduled from day to day and as such are ephemeral trivia.

NCORP is entirely relevant since it applies to goods and services of companies just as much as it does to companies (it literally says this in the first line:"This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service"). The goods and services of a company do not inherit the notability of their parent company per WP:INHERIT, and a split-list has to has stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Every single source comes ultimately from the company itself which is exactly what WP:ORGIND is there to prevent.

Obviously I disagree with you other points but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on them, suffice it to say that a list of all the services of a company obviously falls in to what WP:CATALOG no.6 tells us not to include ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and reading WP:NOT any other way requires reading it to meaning something opposite to what it clearly states.

The examples you cite have a very straight-forward rejoinder: "What about X?".

I don't get how you can repeatedly admit that this is badly-sourced, not produce any examples of independent, 3rd-party coverage to fix that (Aviationweek is industry press and their article is based on a press-release, the VN Express article is also based on a press-release, and anyway only mentions the airline briefly), and then still conclude that the article should be kept. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because air routes can be rescheduled doesn't mean they are actually from day to day. Many international routes require regulatory approval, and it's not insignificant for a destination to be served as routes are important for business and tourist connectivity beyond just being a product on the shelves. Calling this "ephemeral" is nonsense. Amtrak does not even maintain most of its own track infrastructure, and it can also change what routes it provides and stations it stops at; how about List of Metrobus routes in Washington, D.C.? Again, editors are perfectly capable of tracking this because it does not in fact change on a daily basis. Flight frequency and timing details are more ephemeral, but we're not saying which routes are daily or biweekly.

If you don't think the split list has stand-alone notability, then I would recommend a merge and possible restructure. But I don't think this content needs to be separately notable when Vietnam Airlines is already notable and this is complimentary. It's disingenuous to dismiss sources that say "X airline flies to Y airport" – a very straighforward fact – as not being independent because the airline has also stated this, particularly if you're connecting anything from government-owned news to the airline.

Again, this is obviously not "A resource for conducting business" and it's ridiculous to suggest something this general without details about the flights themselves or the cabin experience is a forbidden catalogue; the airline is not using this to sell tickets. You are taking this out of context and reading this the opposite way, because it's no more forbidden to say "Vietnam Airlines flies passengers to Tokyo and San Francisco" than it is to say "Apple sells iPhones and MacBooks".

Some other sources include [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. I didn't search in Vietnamese. Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any significant coverage of the topic of a List of Vietnam Airlines destinations from a source that would meet WP:ORGIND in those articles. The SMH article mentions the destinations of Vietnam Airlines exactly once, in a quote from a travel agent (“I’ve been able to find great prices with Vietnam Airlines into Paris or Frankfurt going via Ho Chi Minh City, so clients have opted to take a three or four night stopovers in Vietnam after holidaying in Europe.”). The Vietnam Investment Review piece is industry press based on a company statement. OAG is industry press and the piece doesn't even mention ANY destinations of Vietnam Airlines. I'm not bothering to go through the others here because it looks like a WP:REFBOMB - can you please say which of these you think is actually significant coverage of the specific topic under discussion here? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I completely agree with everything Reywas92 has posted here. I understand "per X" AfD !votes are frowned upon, but that was comprehensive enough that I don't really have anything else additional to add. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the current destinations, this is essentially Vietnam Airlines' route map converted into a list. Our job is not to store schedule data that's already available on other websites like the airline's or FlightConnections.com. In addition listing every terminated destination runs contrary to WP:IINFO. 'Indiscriminate' can be defined as "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." In my view there is no careful judgment involved in creating a list of every single place that Vietnam Airlines has flown to in its 70-year history. I don't see the need to record that the carrier at one point flew to some random city that appears on its route map from 1964. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 11:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notability, fails NCORP, promo. Sources are not reliable. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously corporate promotion, possibly using paid news? Dazzling4 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]