Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 24

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Moffitt

Pat Moffitt (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:NCOLLATH. Division III college football player who did not win any national awards or receive national media attention. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaksagar

Pulaksagar (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)

Bio stub that was moved from draft despite minimal sourcing. I can’t see any reliable independent sources so bringing here for consensus.. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability
Farsadx (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. G3, hoax article with fake references. All LLM output is not slop, but this certainly was! jp×g🗯️ 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallocentrism

Gallocentrism (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 WP:HOAX. From a few quick searches, the word "Gallocentrism" appears to refer only to a focus on France, not "an ethnocentric ideology that places a strong emphasis on the cultural, economical, historical, political and social significance of Gaul". Flounder fillet (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article also contains multiple references that are blatantly made up, including:
Two papers by John Smith in a nonexistent journal:
Things published in "20XX" or "Year":
and, last but not least, "Rome publishers"
Flounder fillet (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is serious enough that you should probably escalate to WP:ANI, as they're still actively editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoginder Sikand

Yoginder Sikand (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:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reading of AUTHOR, but in any case Russ Woodroofe's reviews 1 & 3 above are both of The Origins and Development of the Tablighi-Jamaʿat (1920–2000). A Cross-county Comparative Study. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NAUTHOR says that a collective body of work should have been the subject of multiple reviews. If it was mainly one work, then I would !vote for a redirect to that work, but I see one book with two reviews, and two other reviewed books. This is just about the minimum that I am looking for in NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see 1 & 3 above reviews are on same book. I will change my vote to weak keep because if we remove the sources on the page that are dead and unreliable then these are the only 4 reviews that remain that can be attributed to the page. RangersRus (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Keep. All sources on the page are unreliable, dead domains, page not found and non-secondary independent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as writer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC) but 4 reliable sources with reviews were found with one work having multiple reviews that makes the author pass WP:NAUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure why the rush to delete this. Several of the books look to have healthy citations in GS, and Russ Woodroofe has found multiple reviews. Merely having dead links on the article is not a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I always make sure to preserve articles and only consider deletion after thorough investigation. I would advise other editors to follow the same approach: take your time, conduct careful research, and then provide your comments. Avoid rushing the process. Thank you--- Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get additional opinions on the book reviews brought to this discussion and whether or not they satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. DS (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Priesthood Sunday

Priesthood Sunday (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)

Non-notable annual event - no coverage in RS, seems to only be celebrated by a few organisations. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G3, hoax article with fake references. All LLM output is not slop, but this certainly was! jp×g🗯️ 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italocentrism

Italocentrism (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)

An AI-generated article about a non-notable term. Original version was referenced to at least two completely nonexistent papers. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Farooq Zahoor

AfDs for this article:
Umar Farooq Zahoor (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)

At first look, the BLP appears notable. However, by evaluating the coverage, I'm unable to locate any reference that meets GNG. The sources largely rely on tabloid journalism Norwegian publications such as Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet where sources #1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are written by the same reporter (Rolf J. Widerøe). The rest of the sources include unreliable Pakistani publications, and spam sources such as source #17 per this which was added as an archived source. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI has been filed against this editor for WP:BE. If proven, their vote should be removed. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The use of a tabloid journalism source like Verdens Gang by an experienced editor raises a valid concern; however, the individual still meets the WP:GNG criteria.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I’m not the only one using this source. If you consider it unreliable, please take it to WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of publication's format (i.e. tabloid format or broadsheet), both journalists, Hans Petter Aass and Rolf J. Widerøe, are well-regarded in Norway and have received reputed awards like SKUP Award and Den store journalistprisen. I think we should create articles about them on English Wikipedia as well for their investigative journalism. Gheus (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown According to Wikipedia:RSP#TabloidsThey often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, and lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and still fail GNG.
It seems that the reporter writing for Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet, who has covered this topic extensively, has a clear conflict of interest. This shouldn't raise any valid concerns I guess. Bosecovey (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Papers that are in tabloid format aren't unusable. Tabloid journalism does not equal tabloid format. I don't know much about VG, but it seems to be widely used both on enwiki and Norwegian wiki. I can't find any obvious concerns about its journalism from a brief search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdens Gang is not a tabloid newspaper in the Sun/News of the World/New York Post/Bild sense of the word. Its journalists have won the investigative journalism prize time and time again. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable on some parts
Farsadx (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small castes

Small castes (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 cites no sources. A Google search for "small castes" reveals no relevant results. I can't find any evidence anywhere that these castes were created by the occupying authorities. On the contrary, many of the castes listed here have their own articles on the wiki, and many of those articles seem to indicate a much more ancient history to those castes. The description of the Teli caste is nonsensical (oil tycoons?) and suggests that the content in this article may have been machine-translated from a non-English source. The one sourcethe article used to cite doesn't mention any of the content in the article. The content of the article is currently being included in AI-summaries for related searches, which is a concern if this information is not true. I challenge the community to either find sources for the content of this article or, if sources cannot be found, to delete it. -- LWG talk 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Rudie

General Rudie (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)

While I was able to find some coverage of the subject in reliable sources (which I've added to the article), it's not enough to establish notability, and I wasn't able to find anything much more substantial (there are mentions in newspapers). The AllMusic biography ([24]) is very brief, and the AllMusic ([25]) and Exclaim! ([26]) reviews aren't particularly long (both less than 200 words). The other links in the article don't help establish notability, either (and the Punknews.org review isn't a staff review). toweli (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. toweli (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Links in the article and mentioned above are all I find as well, I don't think they meet musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. I also don't see significant coverage about the particular band members. ~
  • Delete. Since any basis for notability here would be at least 20 years old, I also ran a ProQuest search to check for older coverage that wouldn't have Googled — and while I got a good number of glancing namechecks of this band's existence, mainly in concert listings and/or coverage of other bands that they toured with, I found absolutely nothing that would constitute WP:GNG-building coverage about this band. But nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass GNG on the sourcing: the article was obviously trying for NMUSIC #5, "has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", but a record label that exists only as a redirect to a larger successor company whose article is still poorly sourced clearly doesn't qualify as important enough to pass that criterion — and NMUSIC explicitly states that passage of its criteria still have to be properly sourced, and nothing in it ever confers any "no sourcing required because notability claim is asserted" freebies, so even if we accepted it as a sufficiently "important" label the article would still have to be better sourced than this anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. SK 2, 3 and probably also 4. Sky News (UK) and The Irish Times are normal newsorgs, no reason given why they should be considered unreliable. No prejudice against speedy renomination should anyone choose to write one that makes sense. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moneycorp

Moneycorp (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 to meet WP:SIGCOV, all the sourced provided are unreliable sources. Bosecovey (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - The article needs better sourcing but a simple search in the books section has numerous sources covering several areas of the company in depth. SunnyScion (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zonaradiko where it is already mentioned repeatedly, as a harmless ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsestos

Tsestos (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)

Tagged uncited in 2009. I could not find good enough sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a possible Merge. Also, this article is being discussed here, at an AFD, so PROD is no longer possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Remedy Drive. asilvering (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnify (Remedy Drive album)

Magnify (Remedy Drive album) (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:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Remedy Drive. Whether it's WP:RS or not, one review does not the basis for a standalone article make. asilvering (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Makes a Way

Light Makes a Way (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:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Remedy Drive. asilvering (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope's Not Giving Up

Hope's Not Giving Up (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:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Schofield

Brooke Schofield (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)

Same issues as the podcast even if it's not quite as bad. Coverage is trivial and routine, there is nothing that meets all 4 criteria (independent, secondary, in-depth, reliable). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FactGrid

FactGrid (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 find no independent coverage of this database. It does appear useful, but appears to be too soon to be a notable product. A BEFORE shows it's in use and blurbs about how the tool works, but it's from the tool itself.

While I would be fine with a redirect to University_of_Erfurt#University_projects, I don't think it's DUE there, and that has already been contested so merits more discussion. Star Mississippi 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it, FactGrid was and is in a way part the official roll out of Wikibase as a common database software. The project was an official collaboration between Wikimedia and the University of Erfurt in 2018, and it is now probably the biggest Wikibase community outside Wikidata. The integration into Germany's National Research Data Infrastructure in 2023 has been the biggest move towards the institutionalization of the database. The platform is now an official recommendation for historical projects to use in Germany. It has projects in Berkeley, Barcelona, Budapest and Paris - with a 1 Million database objects and projects that participate with budgets up to € 900.000 it should no longer be a small website. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://blog.wikimedia.de/2018/08/31/many-faces-of-wikibase-die-geschichte-der-illuminaten-als-datenbank-erschliessen/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. I was the one who originally WP:BLARed the article, and I admit I probably should have responded to the contesting of the redirection and maybe dropped a note or something, but I've essentially treated it as a contested PROD and did not follow up due to personal reasons. I had more or less forgotten about it by the time I had more time. I do stand by my original assessment, and still believe a redirect is the most appropriate option. While there are some sources, the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources (reliable in a general context) is highly limited, and I do not believe it would be possible to write a standalone article of any length from mostly those sources. In fact, with the state of available sources, I don't believe we would be able to expand much more than maybe 2 or 3 times the current text at University_of_Erfurt#University_projects. While that would be 10% of the current article, I do not believe that would be excessive to the point of being proscribed by WP:DUE, especially if other parts are also expanded. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, a source analysis would be helpful as this is what ultimately influences decisions about notability and whether this article should be retained or changed to a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 17 October 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, Shadow311 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hart (wrestler)

Matt Hart (wrestler) (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 notable wrestler. Just worked on an independent level. The article has sources, most of them are WP:ROUTINE results, others passing mentions. Looking for sources, he only has passing mentions on a few events 1 HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for additional assessments from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 17 October 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, Shadow311 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC) (nomination withdrawn and only K !votes (except one by the nominator, that can be considered moot as they withdrew sometime later))[reply]

A Comedy of Terrors

A Comedy of Terrors (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:BKCRIT. Very poor sources consisting of author's website and the publisher's website. No reviews. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: several reviews in WP:RS were easy to find and have now been added. (I created the original stub). PamD 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reviewed in Publishers Weekly here, a short paragraph in The New York Times here and a paragraph in The Times here. They aren't the longest, but this amount should be enough to meet NBOOK. On a side note, if the other books in the series receive similarly low amounts of coverage, it may make more sense to just merge all books into a single article for the entire series. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I could agree that this much is enough, but with the other books in the series there is the same problem, as you mentioned.
    Mlody1312 (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it seems obvious that reliable sources exist, and should have been located WP:BEFORE this nomination was made. Some books by this author seem to have more extensive discussions, including plot summaries (on the other hand, some predate widespread internet-available sources). But a merger of the rest into a bibliography of this author with say, a paragraph or two on each work, from which individual articles could be split out if there's enough to say about them, as there apparently is for some, is probably a good idea. A publication history and list of reviews doesn't seem like enough to justify a stand-alone article, but if you add a plot summary then there probably is, since that would be too much to cover in a bibliography. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have checked this whole Flavia Albia series and the problem is that almost all volumes have the same problem, i.e. the only sources are the publisher's website and the author's website. This does not meet the criteria of WP:BKCRIT. If a proper coverage for every volume cannot be found, then all volumes are not justified to remain.
    Mlody1312 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    correction: then all THOSE volumes (those that do not meet the criteria). Mlody1312 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources were so easy to find for this one the others are probably the same, just because the sources aren't in the page right now doesn't mean they don't exist. If a search is conducted in places like ProQuest and none are found then it may be an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The author of the article added sources to the references, which can be considered acceptable enough. However, the vast majority of the other volumes in the Flavia Alba book series (which the subject of this article is part of) share the same problem mentioned in my explanation at the top of the discussion. I'm willing to change my position from delete to merge if the author of the page agrees. My reason for merging is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Merging_to_broader_subjects All volumes could be transferred to the newly created article about the whole Flavia Alba series. Currently, the link to the entire series redirects to the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavia_Albia Mlody1312 (talk)
Every book by this author is likely to be reviewed in solid reliable sources, just as in this example. Merging would lose the opportunity to include the cover images, which are intelligent and interesting images but for copyright reasons can only be included in an article about an individual book. PamD 22:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling boy bands

AfDs for this article:
List of best-selling boy bands (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 has been deleted twice, in 2012 and 2014, for being a list article with an impossible-to-define subject that consists largely of original research. As far as I can tell, this current iteration suffers from the same issues, including selection bias toward English-speaking bands (is BTS not a boy band?) and questionable sourcing.

Notably, the sales numbers are pretty universally incidental to the subject of the sourced articles. In addition, the dates of the articles range from 1995 to 2018. While that doesn't totally preclude the article from existing, it's clear to see that these numbers are not an objective current ranking of sales, and the stretch to source implies that reliable rankings of this sort aren't currently out there. At the very least, the current article is drawing conclusions not made by the sources. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tea for the Voyage

Tea for the Voyage (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, with one exception. On ProQuest, there is significant coverage, but it's all from a local newspaper, The Kingston Whig-Standard. The band is also merely mentioned in a few other newspapers. toweli (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugendra Pawar

Yugendra Pawar (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)

Clearly fails WP:NPOL, because not elected to any legislative body and he is about to contest upcoming elections. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NPOL – news coverage only comes from his relationship with Sharad Pawar, who is notable in their own right. They also aren't mentioned in Sharad's personal life section. Deuxde (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fail criteria for notability of politician and not notable enough to stand now

Tesleemah (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Liam Payne. Note that I have merged this almost warts and all; anyone who feels this should have been selectively is free to trim the article themselves. (non-admin closure) Launchballer 14:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Liam Payne

Death of Liam Payne (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)

Feels like WP:NOTNEWS to me. While Liam Payne was famous, he wasn't famous to the degree that Elvis Presley, Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson were that it would feel like having a separate page solely dedicated to his death would be warranted. What seems to me to be a good comparison would be the death of Matthew Perry , which nobody has decided warrants a standalone article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, and a lot of the detail in this article feels superflous. At 3,700 words currently, Liam Payne's article is also considerably below the 8,000 word limit where looking to split the article would be warranted, so I would support the selective merging of the content of this article back into that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liam Payne. Agree with others, I don't think this warrants is own article. Not yet at least. TheBritinator (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liam Payne per above. His death is not worthy of a standalone article as, despite his notability, it has not had the impact of someone like Michael Jackson or even David Bowie. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree 173.177.135.148 (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree. Doesn't warrant a separate article, at all. Pragnell1957 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While it does make international headlines and a lot of discussion regarding his death, this is not notable enough I believe. Until if more details of the investigation turn up, it'll remain within Liam Payne's article. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not gonna lie, this is a detailed and very well-written article, probably GA standard. Too bad I'm leaning towards merge and redirect per above. Don't really see a reason to grant a standalone article for now. Maybe if turns out that it was a murder or so like the death of Michael Jackson, until then, it's remains can be preserved. dxneo (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Liam Payne#Death per above comments. TheWikiholic (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Liam Payne#Death - I invite the next editor who is able, to WP:SNOW close this one. Yeah, he was in a super-popular boy band, but there's nothing of substance around allegedly being intoxicated and then falling from a balcony. The death itself, while sad, isn't, probably won't end up being as widely felt as the deaths of the King of Pop or David Bowie. Google didn't crash after Liam Payne died. It's hard to find this event notable beyond the collective public grief as expected from the death of any popular figure. Can't really even condone draftifying. BarntToust 12:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Robinson (disambiguation)

Gene Robinson (disambiguation) (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 is a procedural nomination by which the venue of the discussion that began at Miscellany for deletion is moved to AfD as the correct venue. At the time of my creating this AfD discussion, I have not expressed any advocacy or opinion on the matter. The MfD discussion is quoted below, including the real nomination and a single !vote:

—Alalch E. 17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind... to expound... first of all, IMO "Gene E. Robinson" should be moved to "Gene Robinson (entymologist)". That as my opinion as people called him "Gene Robinson" without the E. I think, and I'm not a fan of the middle-initial thing when you could use paranthetical disambiguation which tells what the article is about. But either way, whatever, that is not the question here. The question is, are we going to:
  1. Keep the bishop's hatnote as it is (pointing just to the entymologist).
  2. Have the bishops's hatnote point to the entymologist, to Jean, and to the Eugene disambig page.
  3. Keep the disambig page and have the bishop's hatnote point to just it.
Well... #1 gives the reader no chance to find their article if they are indeed looking for Jean or Eugene (rare but non-zero). #2 is a bit long with three entries, that last two being rare. #3 seems to fit the situation best. It is a matter of opinion, and that is mine. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entomologist is a significantly more prominent topic than the bishop. —Alalch E. 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well but the bishop is getting 92 page view/day and the entemolgist is getting 3. Herostratus (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Those numbers are what I was also referring to, but I switched them up in my head. —Alalch E. 07:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor D. McGuinness

AfDs for this article:
Conor D. McGuinness (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)

Already deleted three years ago at a previous AfD. Given the source retrieval dates, and the fact that the same person created the article, it is likely that most of them are the same sources that were already considered previously.

The only main difference (and the reason why this isn't a WP:G4) is the fact that he declared his candidacy for the general election, although that in itself doesn't confer notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has no coverage beyond local news. Noah 💬 01:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet notability for simply being a candidate. The only coverage is of strictly local matters [28] which aren't enough for notability here. Sources now used are simply confirmation of his activities as a local politician. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD. Other than the subject being a candidate (again) for the coming general election. In particular, based on the sources, the subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The article is otherwise a recreation of the same title/content that was previously deleted (to the extent that it contains the same ref links - several of which are dead, more than a few of which only mention the subject in passing, and at least one of which doesn't appear to mention the subject at all). Guliolopez (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a candidate for the Dail, he would not be considered notable. As a member of a local council, he would also not meet WP:NPOL as subnational politicians in Ireland are not viewed as inherently notable. Bkissin (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable local politician, fails WP:NPOL and also fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons stated above. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — so he doesn't qualify for an article just for being a candidate in an upcoming Dail election, and the local level of political office is not "inherently" notable at all, so being a councillor for a municipal district is not an automatic inclusion pass either. Municipal councillors don't get articles for existing, they get articles when they can be credibly demonstrated as special cases of markedly greater notability than the norm for that level of significance.
    But the referencing here is extremely overdependent on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and purely run of the mill local coverage of the type that every municipal councillor in every municipality is routinely expected to receive, not demonstrating any credible evidence that he would be more special than other municipal councillors.
    Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the Dail seat, but there's no basis for permanent notability here yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hustwit

Jim Hustwit (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:BLP of a composer and record producer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must meet certain specific criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability -- mainly his work metaverifying its own existence on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that were directly affiliated with it, but also IMDb -- there's not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in an independent third-party source shown at all, and absolutely nothing reliable or GNG-worthy turned up on a Google search either.
Also, I strongly suspect conflict of interest, as the article was first created by a WP:SPA who created this as their first-ever Wikipedia edit and then disappeared until coming back four years later to "update" it, and has never edited any other pages on Wikipedia at all.
As his career goes back more than a decade, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to archives of British media coverage that might not have Googled can find more than I was able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janney, Indiana

Janney, Indiana (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)

Appears to be a rail point on a now-abandoned C&O line. A county history doesn't mention it, and there's nothing significant there. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Qinghai–Tibet railway#Route. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangkedong railway station

Jiangkedong railway station (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 refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing much which would appear to show that the topic meets the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Usman

Akhtar Usman (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 BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Farley (manners expert)

Thomas Farley (manners expert) (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)

None of the references provide anything close to in-depth, independent, secondary coverage about Farley. Yes he has appeard on TV and has written for or been quoted in newspapers, but that's not what WP:NBIO calls for. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

I am the subject of this article and absolutely appreciate the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, notability, and neutrality.

I am consistently consulted and featured on national and local American television networks; global television outlets; radio stations; in newspapers; magazines; and on podcasts on all aspects of modern manners and contemporary, societal etiquette. I began this work in 2000 and for more than two decades now, my name, likeness and commentary appear with regular frequency in outlets that are broadcast to millions of viewers and listeners.

I only learned of this deletion discussion after being approached by several external parties offering paid services to influence the outcome. I have ignored those emails, choosing instead to engage with the community here, according to Wikipedia’s established guidelines.

For those who have legitimate concerns about the page as it stands, I do hope the community can offer further specific guidance on how the article can be improved—and what my role in that improvement would correctly be.

In my research for how to weigh in appropriately on this discussion, one of the things that has impressed me most is the community’s sincere focus on being respectful of others. In that spirit, I truly appreciate your consideration and welcome your assistance to bolster the page in ways you deem necessary.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


[Thomas Farley, Mister Manners] 12.157.19.205 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's difficult to sort through the fluff here given how often Farley himself appears as a writer, but obviously those sources don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT. I was not able to find any significant coverage of Farley himself so I'd lean delete unless some can be produced. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi Thomas Farley (editing as 12.157.19.205). Thank you for commenting here and not responding to the scam emails offering paid services. Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects is a good page to read.

    I would like to support keeping this article as I think it's likely you're notable since you have appeared many times in print and broadcast media. However, in the searches for sources I've done, I've found only articles that quote you. These articles have minimal biographical coverage of you (at most just a sentence or two). On that basis, I cannot support retaining the article yet. The topic needs to pass Wikipedia's "general notability guideline", which says:

    Are there any independent reliable sources that provide significant biographical coverage about you? Sources that largely quote you do not count. Please read the guideline Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. This essay is also useful as it provides a good summary of what sources will contribute to notability. See also my contribution at another deletion discussion for an example of how I supported keeping another biography.

    As the article's subject, you are best placed to locate reliable sources that have profiled you. If you can find at least two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of you (and are not just interviews), then I will support keeping this article. If no such sources can be found, the Wikipedia policy-based outcome is deletion of this article. My hope is sources can found. Thank you very much for your help! Cunard (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If Cunard has not found sources to support a keep then I doubt they exist, but please ping me if sources are found. The sources available do not support a WP:GNG/WP:NBIO pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . I wish there was a Nice-pedia, but we’re not that. Lots of people have appeared in the media to discuss their experiences and expertise, but that doesn’t make them notable. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Life Insurance Association

Korea Life Insurance Association (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 significant coverage; I managed to find occasional trivial mentions only. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; lot of coverage in Korean. [38][39][40][41][42][43] and much more. If you haven't, please try searching in the native language of articles before nominating for deletion seefooddiet (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantive independent coverage is found, in which case I'll reconsider my vote. Based on a google translate review of the sources identified above:
I'm all in on the message that people should be capable of doing native language searches, but what turns up has to qualify for notability and in my opinion none of these sources meet the requirements of SIRS. Oblivy (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are all just regurgitated press releases. RachelTensions (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Air America (radio network). ✗plicit 13:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Real

On the Real (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 refs on the page for 4 years. Nothing much found which would count towards the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthoba Nayaka

Arthoba Nayaka (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)

Not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 美しい歌 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masayoshi Takayanagi

Masayoshi Takayanagi (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)

Huge failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of football matches. No usable sources in ja:wiki, is it apparent for everyone that they are exclusively WP:PRIMARY (or too short, as #1). Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeraj Kurup

Shreeraj Kurup (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 to meet WP:SIGCOV and so unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesleemah (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to History of tornado research. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on tornadoes in 2024

Research on tornadoes in 2024 (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 is a niche topic that fails WP:N and is likely WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing is inherently notable about routine tornado research that requires a Wikipedia article to be written about it. United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I wouldn't mind a merge. SirMemeGod  13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least I would support a merge into History of tornado research#2024. Procyon117 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are very different opinions on what should happen with this article and its content so I'm giving this discussion more time in hopes of achieving a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still isn't a clear outcome from this discussion as of yet. I'm relisting this for perhaps more input into this discussion and a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Closing this as Draftify as this is the consensus but Ldm1954 is correct, if an interested editor doesn't take this article on as a project, this article will just end up being deleted in 6 months. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirvidya Parisanstha

Jyotirvidya Parisanstha (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)

Subject does not establish notability. Sections devoid of information. Poorly written. Written in a non-formal and non-neutral way. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Souls (video game)

Black Souls (video game) (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 draft that was copy and pasted back into mainspace (so, it's been objected to). A PROD would also likely be objected to. A WP:BEFORE brings up another game. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any reliable, published sources documenting the existence of this game. The best I can find is a random TV Tropes article (as you probably know, TV Tropes has far less strict policies on "notability" than Wikipedia).
Fails WP:V and WP:N. ApexParagon (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no notability. Seems like it has a tiny insular group of fans, and has made no impact outside that group. ApLundell (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI There is an unrelated board game with the same name. ApLundell (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article was published before too the same day but I moved it to a draft as it had no sources and to give the creator of the article time to establish if it has potential merit, however I haven't seen any other sources confirming its a game notable of having a page and as he re-published it I simply don't see any arguments for keeping this article. BastianMAT (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Save. There are certainly sources that prove existence of this game.
For example official page of the creator, Sushi Yuushi Toro: https://ci-en.dlsite.com/creator/6414 which is publishing games under the name "Eeny Meeny Miny Moe?" or "Iniminimanimo?" as the google translator suggests.
There are also multiply links to his games and social media.
Twitter: https://x.com/toro_yori_ebi
Pixiv: https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/2938678
Fantia: https://fantia.jp/fanclubs/22621
And store where you can buy his games:
Riding Woods: https://www.dlsite.com/maniax/work/=/product_id/RJ185696.html
Black Souls: https://www.dlsite.com/maniax/work/=/product_id/RJ203687.html
Black Souls II: https://www.dlsite.com/maniax/work/=/product_id/RJ237469.html
What else do we need? I'll find it. OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fix: Red Riding Woods instead of Riding Woods. This game may also be known under the name Red Hood's Woods. OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OMGMLGPROGAMER It's not so much the existence of the game that's being questioned but whether or not the game has been noted by reliable sourcing (for example, game reviews/articles, etc. that have gone through editorial oversight) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 10:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like these ones?
StopGame: https://stopgame.ru/game/black_souls
Backloggd(Wahfuu): https://www.backloggd.com/u/Wahfuu/review/335161
Backloggd(Meiya): https://www.backloggd.com/u/Meiya/review/1869058 OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a few Japanese articles.
1) https://kengyo777.hatenablog.com/entry/2021/11/02/033117
2) https://tonizaburou.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/02/06/201515
3) http://yumeno907.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-77.html OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please take a look at WP:GNG and submit the best THREE sources for us to consider. Some of the ones that you've presented above don't seem reliable, looking at just the domain names (e.g. "blog" in url). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Very well, I believe these three are the most reliable.
1) Neutral review from StopGame: https://stopgame.ru/game/black_souls
2) Official page of the creator Sushi Yuushi Toro (Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe): https://ci-en.dlsite.com/creator/6414
3) Store page of the Black Souls: https://www.dlsite.com/maniax/work/=/product_id/RJ203687.html
If this enough? OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these aren't the sort of sources Wikipedia deems usable for proving notable. We want sources from professional publications, not blogging websites where anyone can join and write. Retails listings don't help either. Think more like content from staff writers at your IGNs and your GameSpot websites. WP:VG/S has many good examples. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced by the presented "sources" which are simply store pages created by the game's creator themselves. It does not seem like the creator is here to build an encyclopedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there is a problem.
    Most of the sources are in a form of a video reviews, on the YouTube, which Wikipedia seems to hate.
    And the best informational source Black Souls has is an unofficial Japanese wiki that rather covers some lore details, rather than the story itself.
    Here it is: https://w.atwiki.jp/iniminimanimo/
    Of someone would take the idea of making Black Souls article on the Wikipedia seriously, what would you recommend to do? OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm I think @OMGMLGPROGAMER is a bit of an overenthusiastic fan...which is, honestly, fine, but I also think they are intending to building an encyclopedia.
    OMGMLGPROGAMER, the reason why we "hate YouTube" is because YouTube doesn't require editorial oversight. I actually watch YouTube every day. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I'd gladly contribute to the Wikipedia by making an article about something I know too well. Even though this is not my article, I feel quite passionate about it. Feeling that this article will be deleted, I'll try to create my own about this subject, even though it will be quite challenging without references to the YouTube as it seems, hmm... but at least I have a little idea of what to do. Thank you very much! OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OMGMLGPROGAMER, you're encouraged to write articles better than the any that have been deleted. But I encourage you to create and improve them in Draft space and submit themt to WP:AFC for review by an experienced editor. Too many new content creators put their articles directly into the main space where they are then subject to deletion discussions like this one. User and Draft space can be a safe space to work out the kinks in a newly formed article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, alright, thanks for the suggestion! I'll certainly be far more careful than the creator of this article. OMGMLGPROGAMER (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of traffic collisions (2000–present). as an ATD. I didn't find the Keep arguments terribly strong but this content could be Merged to a related article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Egyptian bus accident

2008 Egyptian bus accident (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)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – (Revised vote) – Borderline in my opinion. I've found some "detailed" coverage dating back to 2008 plus one in 2013, however, the lack of actual sustained continued coverage post-2009, and the lack of demonstrable lasting effects are enough for me to vote delete, albeit a weak one. As WP:EVENTCRIT#4 says, routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Sources found: Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: The article obviously needs some work, but could meet criteria if sufficiently sourced and expanded. SirBrahms (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of interest, what work would you suggest (or, indeed, perform yourself)? Did you look at any available sources or evaluate the current sourcing of the article? Would you recommend any sources to add to it? And if so, what sources would you recommend for consideration? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep As said above by @SirBrahms Article does need some work, but 55 fatalities is notable and should stay as an article even if there are no reliable or good sources. I'm sure this article could be saved and increased to a good grade if we put in some work. @Thebiguglyalien Lolzer3k 17:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AS per my comment above, what 'work' would you put in to increase this article to a 'good grade'??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source retrieval and expansion. This article is a WP:STUB that cites no sources. there is indefinetly atleast one or many sources that could help enlarge this article. @Alexandermcnabb Lolzer3k 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of sourcing for a single event with no enduring influence does not address WP:LASTING "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." and therefore we have a report of a single incident which is where we fail WP:NOTNEWS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Is currently on the main page (non-admin closure) NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 03:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Simulator

The New York Times Simulator (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 could find only one secondary source - https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/04/a-new-game-parodies-the-new-york-times-gaza-coverage/ - and even this would probably not be a conventional WP:RS. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Takala

Rudy Takala (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)

Article does not provide any indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. He ran for state legislature but did not win, and the sources are links to things he wrote, rather than articles about him. I am unable to find significant coverage of him from a Google search. ... discospinster talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:POLITICIAN. Local party worker and commentator in his youth. No indication he ever held office other than within his own local party affiliations. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The statement "Takala was elected chairman of Minnesota's Pine County Republicans at the age of 18. He was re-elected in 2009 with 60% of the vote, and again in 2011" looks promising except that it is without citation. Subject does not meet the notability of a politician and it fails WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just standing as an unsuccessful candidate for one, so there's no basis for notability as a politician here — and the notability test for journalists is not passed by referencing their journalism career to sources where they're the bylined author of coverage about other things, it's passed by referencing their journalism career to sources where they're the subject of coverage and analysis written by other people. (And even worse, most of the "journalism" sourcing isn't even leading me to articles he wrote, either: it's leading me to either photographs of politicians who aren't Rudy Takala or articles written by somebody else, not articles by or about Rudy Takala.) So there's no basis for notability as a journalist shown here either. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Lost China

The Men Who Lost China (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)

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I suppose... Either way is fine really. I think our de facto standard for films is "it exists (or did)". There are a number of film articles that have less than info than this in them I think. And the director is bluelinked... on the other hand, it looks like he shouldn't be. And it is only 52 minutes... not a short film, but is that long enough for a feature film? If it had a serious release in a serious number of commercial theaters I would probably change my mind. But there's no indication of that, and it seems doubtful. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

Edward Katongole-Mbidde (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:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interview from 1996 with a couple of sentences of bio: [69] which confirms he's director of the Uganda Cancer Institute, calls him "one of Uganda’s foremost AIDS researchers", "chair of the research subcommittee of the Uganda National AIDS Committee" and an "international authority on HIV vaccine research". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre FORA

Centre FORA (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)

Non-notable organization. BEFORE search leads to nothing, failing GNG and NORG. Kline • talk • contribs 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felo Barkere

Felo Barkere (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's nothing that mentions Felo Barkere and Baunez Ridge together that isn't Eric Gilbertson related/sourced. This location doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Bikku Bitti have used peakbagger and summitpost blogs as a source, so what's the difference with this article? Any highest point of a sovereign nation should have its article on Wikipedia or at least be mentioned. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people like Eric or Ginge are the only source of information on peaks like this. Allowing one highpointer's firsthand information (like Ginge on Bikku Bitti) but not allowing Eric's on Felo Barkere seems strange and inconsistent by WP policy. Also, peakbagger has extensively been used as a source for minor mountains (which Felo Barkere would fall under), so what is the sudden change against this? Also, peaks promoted to the main database on peakbagger are looked over and verified by administrators, so some "child sitting on his dad's shoulder" won't be messing up the measurement by 5-6 feet on a peak in the main database as much of the data comes from professionally done surveys. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up Bikku Bitti. I've cleared out totally unacceptable low quality diary/blog, which appears to have been added over a decade ago. As you look at different articles, you will sometimes find articles written over a decade ago that is chock full of complete trash and ad articles that look like a press release written entirely off of company site. On less lower traffic article that sort of things tend to happen. When you find contents written based on personal website, first see if the site cites a reliable source that meets WP:RS standards. If it does, replace it with that source. If not, I personally encourage removing contents based on some anecdotal evidence. Pruning low quality information is part of improving Wikipedia. If there's trash all over both sides of the road and someone cleans up one side, you can go ahead and clean the other side. Graywalls (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to find a RS to justify the redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. CIA Factbook [70] says the highest point in Senegal is unamed so conflicting with "Felo Barkere". Barkere is apparently a village in Guinea so it's questionable the peak has this name in Senegal. This website just calls it "Senegal High Point" [71] and is 10 metres higher than stated in the article. Agree with the nominator's comments and reasoning. As it stands there's basically a single source for this name, so notability not established and it would be wrong to redirect to the Geography of Senegal page under this article's title. So, unless further reliable sources found to back up Felo Barkere, I'm inclined to delete. Rupples (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing a way to WP:V so it doesn't feel like there is an ATD. Maybe sources exist in a format we can't access, so this might change in the future and the page can be resurrected. JMWt (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or ask at WP:REFUND. Know that you will have to submit the article to WP:AFC for an editorial review. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentest-Tools

Pentest-Tools (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 WP:SUSTAINED establishment of notability with WP:RSes. Clearly promotional. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SirBrahms, @everyone, Please help me with any suggestions to improve the page, i'm willing to improve it in order to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest trying to remove material that could be considered promotional first, and then making efforts to link this article in relevant pages (unorphan). I hope this helps set you on the right track to improving it. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Reads like a promotional for a company. Clearing falls under WP:NOTPROMO. RCSCott91 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. I take the nominator arguing to Keep this article as an informal withdrawal. Since there are no editors arguing to Delete, I'm closing this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Masood

Fahad Masood (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)

Zero notability, 1 link is a passing mention, another link is the player profile Warmonger123 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_October_24&oldid=1254846968"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 24, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.