Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSINT for Ukraine

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

Non-notable organisation, lacking WP:RS to meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Organizations, Netherlands, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while their work is laudable, there is also insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per all above. gidonb (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rezaul Kabir

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Academicians WP:NACADEMICS. WP:NOTRESUME Charlie (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides summary information to a large audience (i.e., students, academics, scholars, journalists, policy makers) who are interested in academic work on several business related subjects / topics. The content of the article is credible as it includes references to published / verifiable / reliable sources. RRLV (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at this stage, notability is not established although he has a decent amount of citations over the course of his career so one could argue for criterium one https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=c_EQTfoAAAAJ&hl=en

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable citations in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see enough WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, which is independent from GNG and not based on in-depth independent sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. As indicated by the source review, sources don't establish notability for this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadambari Jethwani

AfDs for this article:

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

Just like previous AfD, no evidence support this individual's page meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Currently, sources cover this person only in the context of a single event which is a sexual harassment case which is still under investigation WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has at least 3 significant roles in notable productions and meets WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In line with WP:BEFORE, I checked IMDb, and it appears that none were lead roles. However, if reliable sources indicate otherwise, it could meet the WP:HEYMANN. Charlie (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not lead roles, perhaps, but significant roles, not minor. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are poor and most are written from the perspective of subject herself. She is a very minor actress who has not made a significant achievement worthy of notice in her minor career. Fails WP:N and WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a bit-part actor. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has significant roles mentioned in filmography. meets WP:NACTOR clearly. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E isn't correct too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer At the moment, there are no reliable sources that mention her roles in the movies listed in the article. If you find any, you are welcome to update the page or share a source analysis at this AfD. Please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Also, please include any other events or supportive information that would elevate her beyond the BLP1E criteria. Charlie (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Stand as per - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadambari Jethwani (2nd nomination)#c-Thewikizoomer-20240909075000-CharlieMehta-20240903172200 Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC) (struck duplicate !vote — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis now would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis.
- Source 1.2,3,4 are interviews with the subject and are NOT independent with no secondary verification for the claims in the interview made by the subject.
- Source 5 is an unreliable source moviemint.com that was a blog and the domain does not exist anymore. This source was about interview with a director of the film the subject acted in and just has a passing mention of the subject.
- Source 6 is also by unreliable moviemint.com and just has an entry name of the subject.
- Source 7,8,9,10,11 are about routine news on subject's allegations about harassment by the IPS officers and these sources do not have the subject's name maybe to hide the identity but I did verify from other sources online that the subject was the actress behind the allegation news.

There is no significant coverage on the subject's biodata and career or any achievement that is noteworthy to warrant a page on by any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending the time to sort this out, RangersRus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work @RangersRus: scope_creep^Talk 06:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Really needs some sources to show multiple significant roles - reviews that do more than just mention her would be quite helpful. The existing sources are underwhelming - interviews and minimal coverage other than the harrassment issue. Is that enough for notable? Not enough for me. Some of the claims aren't sourced - dancer and beauty pageants. They wouldn't be enough for notability, but really should be sourced to include. Just reinforces my weak delete !vote. Ravensfire (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Karaikudi#Transport. czar 11:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Karaikudi

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

This might work better as a category instead of a page. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Karaikudi#Transport. Per WP:CLN lists and categories are complementary, and this list has much more information than a category could offer. The nominator gives no reason why they think a category might be better, and I can't think of any. The article could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karaikudi#Transport. I agree that this page a bit short. Also, although a fair number of short railway station lists exist, like: Railway stations in Libya, Rail transport in Mauritius, Reunion Tram Train, Rail transport in Malawi, they are all under country's names. It's just not common for cities to have stand-alone categories of train stations, at least in India, and even New Dehli doesn't have its own list of train stations (the list is within New Dehli#Transport). Pygos (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karaikudi#Transport would be a good idea. The article is a bit short to stand on its own, but its contents could easily be integrated with the Karaikudi Transport page. TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kolesár

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

No evidence this economist passes WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. His h-index is 16, less than half of what would be expected for an average full professor in economics, so there's no pass on criterion 1 and no evidence of passing any other criteria. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources comes up for a WP:GNG pass either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Slovakia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - courtesy ping to Rosguill and Newklear007, who interacted in the contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'ed articles cannot be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination due to lack of significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Nurmimaa

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2016. Not clear if the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Comics and animation, and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appeared on a Finnish soap opera for ten years but, apparently, never won any awards. No coverage whatsoever regarding her stage roles or animated film dubbing. WP:TOOSOON, if ever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ribiyanda Saswadimata

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

Replacement of PROD; played youth nationally, but only played 68 minutes with the Eunos Crescent. Might fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Roasted (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Roasted (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an above average failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very weak article, with a single reference that does not even offer much confidence. If no other sources are found to support it, it should be deleted. It is not so much about whether it contributes or not, but rather that it has a very weak documentary base. The moment others appear to corroborate it, go ahead with it.--181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)

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

Fail to see how this is notable, can't find any WP:RS on this "Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)". The creator of this article basically copied the stuff they were reverted (and blocked) for at Battle of Baideng here. They've misused tons of citations here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], and recently engaged in copyvio in another article [10], which may also be the case here. Most of the citations left are unverifiable (which is very convenient, I can't look for further violations) and doesn't strike me as WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also likely sock/meat puppetry involved here per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunnic Enjoyer. Two brand new users have attempted to remove the AFD template so far. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions in this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia seems to be attracting ever more of this battlebollox, with users inventing or embellishing actual events. It is remotely possible that there are passing mentions in the alleged sources that have been strung together to create this article, but it has all the telltale signs of a fake. Excellent nomination. Mccapra (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mess of WP:SYNTH. Good catch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Book of Mormon people#C. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

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

Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and United States of America. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Ether: as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 13:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There’s only one source that does more than list or suggest how to pronounce this person’s name. That badly fails our foundation of significant coverage, and is borderline original research. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Typically, I'd close this discussion as a Redirect as an ATD but there is no mention of this subject at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon people#C, which does mention him; I'd support retargeting down the road if relevant content is added to some other page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of 3D printed weapons and parts. The details about what to merge elsewhere can be worked out on the talk page. asilvering (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)

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

No evidence found of notability, no independent reliable sources about this. Being offered on some sites is not the same as having the necessary sourcing about the subject. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and Brazil. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that this subject has a significant amount of traction on social media websites like Twitter/X, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. This is difficult to directly cite due to its lack of centralization and login requirements. Still, I would like to think that this subject is notable given that it achieved its publishers' requirements for quality. That said, this subject is relatively new, and I am sure that, in time, more direct evidence of notability will become available. Any suggestions to rectify this in the meantime are appreciated. DreamWeav3r95 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with 3D printed firearm per WP:PRODUCT. Right now I lean heavier towards deletion as the only sources relevant to the actual gun itself are from what looks like the designer's own website- the other sources make no mention of the gun. Getting social media traction is not in and of itself a qualifier for notability. Archimedes157 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have two interviews/podcast with the developer/designer
which are :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLD4geWKA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmZ8dkvOwyM
Also, it is notable that It is the first Bullpup submachine gun/PCC that anyone can make in the world and not based on the FGC-9.
This design is not based on any previous gun design
the only thing it has in common with the fgc-9 is its barrel
I lean toward keeping this page Superlincoln (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
independent reliable sources of the Urutau :
https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/tag/urutau/
https://3dprintgeneral.com/portfolio/the-brazilian-jstark-ze-carioca-3dpgp-ep19/
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yveilleuxlepage_about-an-hour-ago-the-files-for-the-urutau-activity-7231845456090165248-8Leu
https://ctrlpew.com/file-drop-the-urutau/ Superlincoln (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau is mentioned in Armament Research Services (ARES) Research Report 8: Desktop Firearms Desktop Firearms:

Emergent Small Arms Craft Production Technologies 2023 update page 30-31

https://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ARES-Research-Report-No-8-Desktop-Firearms-2023-Update-EARLY-ACCESS.pdf

I think this is enough independent reliable sources about the Urutau right? Superlincoln (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Terror: An Empirical Overview of the Use of 3D-Printed Firearms by Right-Wing Extremists:

However, recent developments within the 3DPF community are concerning, as they seem to focus on further lowering the barriers to entry for producing 3DPF. Noteworthy developments include the ‘Nutty 9,’ an improved bolt design for the FGC-9 consisting of nothing more than four nuts and two bolts screwed into a printed connector piece, and the development of the Urutau—a soon-to-be-released hybrid pistol-caliber carbine—that is said to be significantly easier to build than the FGC-9.

[11]https://ctc.westpoint.edu/printing-terror-an-empirical-overview-of-the-use-of-3d-printed-firearms-by-right-wing-extremists/

Urutau was mentioned in the 3D-Printed Firearms and Terrorism: Trends and Analysis Pertinent to Far-Right Use

5 times

[12]https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778663?seq=2 Superlincoln (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of 3D printed weapons and parts and/or FGC-9. I do not think this meets the GNG yet, though it might be close. The mentions in the academic papers are insufficient to establish notability since they are only trivial, passing mentions with no detail. However, the ARES Research Report is an independent source with several paragraphs on the Urutau. A LinkedIn post by an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada seems promising but he admits in the post to having lacking "expertise in that area" thus his post doesn't meet the expertise guideline for self-published sources. As for the blog posts, YouTube videos, and other primary sources, they (in my opinion) all fall well below the bar for verifiability. If another secondary source of the quality, independence and verifiability of the ARES Research Report can be found, I would change my vote. Richard Ye^talk 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different suggested Merge target articles. Of course, content can be merged to multiple articles but we need a primary article in order to close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure the new second amendment is what we're looking for as far a sourcing goes... This is about all the coverage there is [13], rest are un-RS. Seems like PROMO with most of the sourcing being primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to "3d printed firearms" is probably the best place to send it to. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into FGC-9 (the primary article) as the gun won't have been designed if FGC-9 did not exist and merge it into the List of 3D printed weapons and parts as the secondary article. Superlincoln (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still lean heavier towards delete, but more people seem to support a merge or at least not totally deleting the article, and I agree with Richard Ye that List of 3D printed weapons and parts is probably the best place to merge it. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still have two target articles being proposed with equal support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of 3D printed weapons and parts. Reference already exists within FGC-9 article as well, the subject does not meet WP:GNG for a standalone article. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Lund

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

Based on a single source that is self published. Not clear if the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. She has an article in Finnish National Biography and Upplagseverket Finland. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to meet WP:NACTOR with significant roles in at least two notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing based on the Finnish-language encyclopedia entry found. Thank you Jähmefyysikko for improving the sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Iraq, Moscow

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article is based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iraq, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could say that it is relevant to some future event, in addition the diplomatic headquarters will always be reflected in history in case of a break in diplomatic relations or attacks on them.--Alon9393 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This vague argument is basically recycling what you said in another AfD [14] LibStar (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was not expecting to have to say that we do not keep articles on non-notable places or organisations in case there's a "break-in" in future. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, you have expressed an opinion here but not actually cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, meant to come back. AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I can't locate any sources demonstrating any kind of notability, only verifying the embassy does exist. Alon9393's argument amounts to WP:CRYSTAL; in the event the embassy becomes notable in the future, the article could of course be recreated. Fails WP:ORG at present. GhostOfNoMeme 18:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even giving the Keep vote less weight due to the blocked editor, I don't think this discussion can be closed as a Soft Deletion. Is there an appropriate Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sourcing is currently non-existent and there's not much evidence of better sourcing being available. AusLondonder (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica–Libya relations

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

Prod removed, no reliable sourcing added. Mere existence of established relations between sovereign states is not notable, fails the WP:GNG. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Libya, and Costa Rica. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I could say that it is relevant to some future event, in addition diplomatic relations will always be reflected in history in the event of a break in diplomatic relations or advances in these. --Alon9393 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"relevant to some future event" is WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Alon9393 has now been blocked indefinitely for disruption at AfDs. We don't keep articles in case of a future "break in diplomatic relations". AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I agreed the mere existence of relations is not notable, the article includes information on trade and embassies. I am sure there is more to add as well if one were to research SJD Willoughby (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SJD Willoughby@Alon9393: WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a repository of predictions. If there are reliable sources, please indicate them and I will withdraw. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that notability guidelines concern whether enough sources exist to make a subject notable, not whether there are enough sources in the article which you are focusing on. I am also stating that there is currently enough (though just enough) to keep the article. For example, the information concerning halt in trade relations SJD Willoughby (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take what Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations when they proclaimed that it has no references and there are the references, my inclination is to keep it. I am inclined to believe that Costa Rica-Libya Relations exist and have notoriety like all the diplomatic missions of Ukraine that I see no objection to the fact that they do not exist. Alon9393 (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear how you are arguing for notability based on accepted guidelines. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have been added, I've quickly examined three and they do not support the information they are attributed to. For example, "When the Rebels Are Not Successful at Establishing a New Government" does not mention Costa Rica recognising the NRT, it states, "It is only on 16 September 2011, that the NTC was recognized by the UN General Assembly as the legitimate representative of Libya." There is nothing substantial analysing Costa Rica-Libyan relations. The article "The endurance of the G77 in international relations" does not mention Costa Rica, and mentions Libya once. There is no reference to relations between the two countries. The article from atlasinfo.fr is repeating a press release from the Costa Rican foreign ministry ("indique un communiqué du ministère costaricain des Relations Extérieures"). To be clear, there is no problem applying WP:EXIST, but as far as I can see, there are no WP:SIGCOV reliable sources to support this topic. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The artice "The Recognition of Governments" has a single mention of Costa Rica in relation to a legal case from 1923, there is no mention of relations with Libya. There's a citation to an article from researchgate.net which is self-published and unreliable. The other citations are to databases and press releases. The article has been WP:REFBOMBED; there are no independent, secondary reliable sources which analyse with detail relations between the two states. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing indepth coverage. The relations are extremely limited, and do not include things that make relations typically notable like resident embassies, state visits, significant trade and migration. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been subject to obvious ref-bombing in an attempt to prove notability - one of the academic sources doesn't even mention Costa Rica once! I often comment on AfDs and I know that Goldsztajn always researches each subject carefully and does not just take articles to AfD for fun. Neither country has resident diplomatic missions. The trade section is practically empty other than a few bananas. Just not a notable topic. AusLondonder (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of sigcov, in particular independent sources which discuss this topic directly. Yilloslime (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Oujda

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

Article created by a now-blocked sockpuppet who had a habit of creating somewhat embellished articles about North African military history. There was some sort of military action in Oujda in 1314 but much of the detail here isn’t supported by the sources and I think TNT is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Morocco. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like one of many pseudo-puff pieces about a military engagement that doesn't get more than a sentence or two at most in the cited sources and therefore, logically, could never warrant its own stand-alone article on Wikipedia per WP:NOTABILITY and other content policies. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sigh. Here I thought this genre of sock was confined to medieval Indian history. I'm not even sure this merits much of a note at Oujda. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now Autumn 2007 (Australian series)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage. Folkezoft (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Folkezoft (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalache Interface Designer

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources given is a primary source Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Miminity. Just wanted to check if the secondary sources I added are enough to address the concerns? Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, some of the sources you provided are questionable in terms of reliability. See WP:PRS to see what's some of the reliable sources But again I cannot determine them at my own but some sources you added seems like a WP:USERGEN. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glade Interface Designer#Cambalache: Per nom. Lordseriouspig 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject should be listed to a stub for expansion, passes WP:Notable Tesleemah 08:05,23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah:, as I said it lacks significant coverage for reliable sources per WP:GNGsecondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Google News yields one result from a questionable source (here). The sources provides is primary. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT / WP:PRODUCT. None of the sources in the article show or contribute to notability in any way. Searching online I found press releases and forum discussions/repository entries showing that it does indeed exist and is used, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the article's subject on Wikipedia at this time. Source assessment table follows. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Blessing in disguise. There is clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and broad support for a merge as an ATD. Among the two targets proposed, Blessing in disguise received marginally more support than Silver lining (idiom), but the choice between the two can be discussed editorially on the Talk page, and changed if there's consensus there to do so. If no merger takes place within two months, any editor may blank and redirect the page to the target, or renominate. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt toast theory

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable non-notable ephemeral Tik-Tok dreck. Perhaps worth a sentence elsewhere…maybe a slang dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... regretfully. It has multiple sources with WP:SIGCOV extending across months of coverage. Not seeing a policy based rationale for deleting this. Unfortunately social media trends often create articles of this type.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I was intending to nominate it to AfD, saw it was already done. WP:10YT and WP:NOPAGE apply here. Significant coverage, specially in short news articles about a flash-in-pan phenomenon doesn't necessarily mean that a subject must have a page. It can be better covered in a sentence in any of the many articles on very similar cultural concepts, already listed in the "see also" section or at the top. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Behavioural science, Engineering, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have doubts about the topic's notability. It really looks to me like there was just one TikTok post that managed to inspire several copycat pop psychology articles on various websites for a couple of months. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you make a case that all of these articles are from content farms, you are essentially just reaffirming the subject's notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would the article in The Indian Express negate my whole argument? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined with Glamour, HuffPost, Grazia, and a local station, yes. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll admit I don't actually know how the news cycle operates in those publications. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters is that we believe major publications until shown evidence of lack of editorial oversight. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. What are they saying that we're supposed to believe? That there've been a handful of posts on social media about burnt toast? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and it says that "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a valid argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blessing in disguise per TryK. Meets SIGCOV, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page, and like I mentioned in the discussion to merge it into Blessing in disguise, I don't think that it belongs there either. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have only discussed why it does not belong on the Silver lining page, which I agree with; you haven't argued why Blessing in disguise is unsuitable.

(@Feed Me Your Skin, welcome to AfD! In case you didn't know, these discussions don't give you notifications. Click on the star on the top of the page and install User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like nonsensical mysticism, while burning my toast might prevent me from being hit by a falling meteor, it's equally possible that not burning my toast would also save me, so this theory could be punctured by someone with two brain cells of common sense to rub together. It has only been circulated in clickbait publications, and doesn't feel similar enough to "blessing in disguise". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are valid arguments against retaining here, but as said above, there are many RSs that SIGCOV the subject. Also, while I sympathize with criticism of the idea, the idea is not a deletion argument and goes under WP:NOTFORUM. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the articles are clearly clickbait so I would disagree that they are "reliable sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you don't like the headlines. How does that have any bearing on the fact that The Indian Express,Glamour, HuffPost, Grazia~~, and a local station~~ (actually, maybe scratch the local station that did not fact check a sponsorship, but what about the rest?) are reliable sources? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has WP:SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on the Merge argument? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that user just wants to keep it. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu - I agree that it's a type of sliver lining. I can't say I agree with merging it though. It has enough coverage to stay. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or in the alternative, merge to Blessing in disguise. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigcov is not achieved. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments here for Deletion, Keeping and Merging with two different Merge target articles suggested. Remember this is a discussion about the notability of an article subject, let's maintain civility. Some editors just want to present their argument and not get into a debate about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It seems that the topic does strictly satisfy SigCov, but per @TryKid and @Clarinetguy097's arguments I do not believe it is suitable for its own article. I think merger would be the best way to maintain the core information without puffing a topic out of proportion. Lenny Marks (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ As another user noted, it's an ephemeral TikTok trend, and I don't believe the evidence for notability is very strong. Most of the sources just assert that the original post went viral (or something to that effect), with a few referencing other isolated social media posts or making similar vague claims about "people" applying the burnt toast theory to an aviation accident. Also, I don't see a reason for merging into "Silver lining" or "Blessing in disguise." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blessing in disguise covers basically the same thing, and some sources also connect the two. I don't see how the secondary sources' covering the same primary source has any bearing on the notability, though your argument above of this being a brief burst is still valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not notable, there's no good reason to move the content into another article. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is one of the alternatives to deletion. Not every part of a page has to be notable; only the main subject has to be. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge two or three sentences with Blessing in disguise#Related phrases. It's the same concept, there's really not much of substance in Burnt toast theory, and no-one will talk about this in 10 years (WP:10YT). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but oppose merge. I would normally say that coverage over 5 months would probably make for a WP:NEVENT pass, but in this case it just looks like a slower-moving version of the same flash in the pan – continued coverage seems unlikely, but I do see the case for a keep given the amount and duration of the coverage. That said, there really isn't a suitable merge target for this per WP:COATRACK – if blessing in disguise or silver lining (idiom) were ever taken to GA or FA, any content writer worth their salt would probably remove a one-off viral phenomenon as basically irrelevant. So a merge seems like a bad solution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BookBrowse

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

No WP:SIGCOV of this book review site; references are mostly mentions; awards don't appear to be particularly notable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BookBrowse has been around a long time and well known in the book world. It is often cited by other reliable sources, such as The Cambridge History of Postmodern Literature[15], The New York Times[16][17], and dozens of volumes of Contemporary Authors[18]. It was singled out in Public Libraries (journal)[19], The Public Librarian's Guide to the Internet[20], the Chicago Tribune[21], The Bookseller[22], Publishers Weekly ("Book Site Gives Online Buying That Old Store Feel". 6 January 1999); In 1998 was featured by Yahoo! as its Incredibly Useful Site of the Day. It would be nice to have a lengthy article dedicated solely about the site, but these are often hard to find for many topics. The question for trivial coverage is if there is enough material to write an article with, and that has been done. -- GreenC 22:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC. I also found a decent amount of Newspapers.com coverage, without going too in depth here are some of the sources I found [23] [24] [25] [26]. Also some coverage in these books [27]. Probably more if I looked harder, there's definitely more sigcov in the sea of mentions but I think this is enough for me to vote keep PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC and PARAKANYAA. Οἶδα (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Reiter

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

There's no WP:SIGCOV of this judoka, just stats pages and WP:ROUTINE coverage (plus an assortment of unreliable sources). Nothing found in WP:BEFORE search so the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Austria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be notable for world championship, though WP:NSPORT doesn't have any Judo criteria. Nswix (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of a silver medal at the World Military Championships and even if I did it wouldn't be sufficient to show WP notability as it is a small event and other medalists have had their articles deleted. There are also many similar sounding events, but the previous statement is true for all of them. The International Military Sports Council doesn't even show a judo championship in 2010 [28]. None of the sources given show WP:GNG is met nor my search find support for the claim of notability. The International Judo Federation records shows he never competed at a world championship. He did compete at one European championship in 2013 where he lost in the round of 16. World Cup events are not world championships. Notability is not inherited from his father's judo success, although it is a possible redirect target (he's already mentioned there). Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and complete explanation from Papaursa. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy

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

Reference book. Stub since forever. No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Previously deprodded. Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least four reviews which I have added to the page, 3 of which are decently lengthy, one of which is less so but still sigcov. NBOOK requires 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a few other reviews as well, passes GNG and NBOOK. Shapeyness (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, for references added. Toughpigs (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Newly added sources are sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveGiant

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Seet

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

I tagged this article about a musician with notability concerns in April. It is unreferenced. I have returned to it and carried out WP:BEFORE. The only secondary coverage I can find is a mention of his name in CMJ New Music Report 2003 here. I have not added this to the article as it is minimal. I don't think he meets WP:NMUSICIAN. There is no obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a review of Thanks To Science, We've Got Love (page 6) by Nightshift (magazine), a review of Melatonin by Exclaim!, and a review of Arousal Disasters + an article by Now (newspaper). Jonathan Seet's website has a section for reviews of his music, although a lot of them are short and/or from non-reliable sources. It's also interesting that one of the reviews is by someone who goes by LMNOP, and that User:Mnlop is a single-purpose account for the Seet and Seet-related articles. toweli (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero WP:RS and lack of WP:SIGCOV PaulPachad (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability or SIGCOV found. cyberdog958^Talk 06:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unreferenced, has been unreferenced since 2005 despite not being officially tagged as such until earlier this year, a WP:BEFORE search really didn't turn up enough to turn the tide (a couple of the sources found above by Toweli are okay but not in and of themselves enough, and I didn't find a whole lot else), and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on better sourcing than we've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a BEFORE fail by not checking Proquest. There's a significant Kitchener The Record article from 2003 atProQuest 267072703. And there's that article referenced above in Now (Now was a newspaper back then - not the current online magazine). There's also smaller reviews in major publications of various releases/events such as the Toronto Star (ProQuest 438582829, National PostProQuest 330800197, etc. Nfitz (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One significant article does not magically vault a person over WP:GNG all by itself. GNG requires several substantial articles, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I noted two significant newspaper articles. Now and The Record. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles still isn't enough to constitute a permanent WP:GNG pass all by itself either. If neither article is confirming anything about him that would constitute a notability lock, such as a Juno Award nomination, then GNG isn't satisfied on its face by just two articles. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for discussion on sources recently presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can verify that he’s a musician in Ontario, and I found this brief listing in a book, but overall I don’t think he passes either WP:SIGCOV or MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea women's national under-18 softball team

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

Not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and South Korea. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination unless there is enough significant coverage in South Korean media. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De General

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

Aside the drug traffic of a thing. I don't see any WP:GNG on this comedian. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per the controversy to make it look like his notable. Other source are interviews and while reading further on the news I had to find out that per the content on the newspaper that he was associated with the journalist per ref2 so therefore not independent. Gabriel (……?) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am conscious of WP:BIGNUMBER but I see he has 5,500,000 followers on Facebook and 375,000 on YouTube so sources may exist? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nigerian skit makers are well good at buying social media engagement from third party site especially when being paid for an endorsement they try to package their life for more deals. Meanwhile all this platform also support sponsored features like promotion of page, post and all that to generate more engagement. That doesn’t still qualify WP:GNG. That is why most of this people their source come from interviews ( associating with the journalist ) which can’t be no longer independent. You can see User:Celestina007#Analysis on "Nigerian sources" to have more idea about Nigerian ways. If they were more stories like the one of the drug trafficking I would have count him as a notable per Wikipedia guideline but relying on their followers it’s a weak point. Your response are still welcomed. Gabriel (……?) 20:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De General Did you read this? How is this an interview? If they are seeking for interview, then why was news about their drug traffick published online? All the sources are used are from reliable newspapers in Nigeria Tesleemah (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comedian is notable per WP:Notable as they have independent sources, the controversy were also written in a neutral manner and I don't see a problem with that. I also added the stub template which means the article can be expanded as more sources come up. But for now, they are ok to stand on Wikipedia.Tesleemah (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article doesn’t mean they can’t be AFD. I am judging from the current situation as it is on the main space. People like De General it is only when they cause trouble they gain the newspaper attention that is why he gained one from the drug trafficking which passes independent source & significant. Aside that is there any other source you wanna provide that is independent and significant to proof notability. We can’t just call someone is notable all because they are famous. Gabriel (……?) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find how they are related to the journalist here or am I missing something? If he truly want them to write for him, how come some news outlets published his negative news? Tesleemah (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna know if you are missing something you can read the article from the link above I dropped earlier which directs to Celestina007. If you can provide 3 to 4 negativity then I will withdraw the AFD or any notable award won by the comedian from reliable source. Gabriel (……?) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and I didn't see where all newspapers are to be condemned, rather he suggested these articles should be vetted. For the negativity I added up to 5 references under the controversy. In fact, going online now, I saw more of the news about his drug trafficking. Tesleemah (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable newspaper are not to be condemned. Nobody says so. Meanwhile aside the drug trafficking you haven’t said anything than that to proof notability. The subject it’s just a Too soon and you saying more future sources are coming up, who knows?. We can’t vouch for any subject progress. Except you have a close connection with the subject then a rethink will be considered. Gabriel (……?) 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already declared on my userpage I don't have close relation with any of the authors I write about nor do I write on behalf of any employer or organisation. I will not appreciate being connected otherwise. Kind regards Tesleemah (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This sufficiently passes GNG, he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. The sources[addresses] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I also do not smell any COI or sponsored contents going on, sources seem natural. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Delete: On further checks, this is all centred on WP:BLP1E. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have already checked the sources, unless there are new sources I can’t see, this entry is sourced to interviews and the routine coverages surrounding his arrest. Best, Reading of Beans 13:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although centered WP:UNDUELY on his arrest by NDLEA, I disagree with Gabriel's statement, that "Nigerians are usually known for buying followers". We all know that he is a celebrity but haven't received mainstream content review and WP:SIGCOV. Like other comedians, it's usually few coverages atleast to meet WP:ENT. Bearing above as well as WP:BIG, I wouldn't oppose having this article as a redirect to List of Nigerian comedians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject would have been unlikely to come to media notice without the drug bust and conviction..WP:BLP1E and fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Mitrosz

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2008. Not clear the the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld This seems to be your creation. Could you please have a look? Authority control databases kicked up some links, but I'm having trouble reading the results. Thanks for whatever input you can give. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent notability from the article, pl entry is no better. GSCholar and GNews gave me only few passing mentions.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Starkey

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

Fails WP:GNG. The justification for the creation of the article in 2007 was that Starkey "was one of the last surviving veterans of WWI" even though he joined 8 months after the war ended. Both references (which are now permanent dead links) appear to be from his local paper and one is his obituary. I can't find anything when searching for further references except for a clipping of his wife's obit in the same paper. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pennsylvania. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. I don’t see what he did is in any way notable. He joined the armed forces after the Armistice of the Great War and didn’t do anything else except living past 100. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, it used to be that any possible WWI veteran was considered notable by some back when this article was created, even if it was WWI-adjacent at best. Some have yet to have an AfD, such as this one and Robley Rex. There was an AfD a few months ago for a guy who showed up for induction into the Army on November 11, 1918 and was just dismissed because the armistice had been signed earlier that day and an earlier AfD was closed as keep with the reasoning being that he "assumed the risk" and that made him one of the "last surviving WWI veterans". Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia at the Africa Cup of Nations

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

All sources provided are match reports. And very little, if any, of the information here cannot be found in the Liberia national football team article and the two individual AFCONs in which Liberia appeared. Anwegmann (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Liberia. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Need improvements, but it is a remarkable period for the Liberia national team. Also follows the same pattern as similar articles. Svartner (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – established article type, see Category:Countries at the Africa Cup of Nations; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article can be expanded upon. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above article can be expanded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—As nom, this all makes sense, especially as I "zoom out" and see other articles like it. I still think that these types of articles don't really do anything of benefit, unless the team's participation in the tournaments were somehow particularly notable, but I understand all the "keep" votes. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article after the new sources have been found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZWCAD

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

This software page does not comply with WP:PRODUCT. It has only routine not sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Software, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Xu, Shiqi 徐诗琪 (2020-05-28). Lin, Teng 林腾 (ed.). "【独家】租来的技术却称自主产权？中望软件的核心技术之谜" [Exclusive: Rented Technology Claimed as Proprietary? The Mystery Behind ZWSOFT's Core Technology]. Jiemian News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-06. Retrieved 2024-09-06.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Based on the prospectus, Jiemian News conducted an in-depth investigation and found that ZWCAD is actually a product developed based on a third-party kernel, and the so-called "completely independent property rights" is out of the question. The reason is that ZWCAD is not only a member of these international technology agreements mentioned in the prospectus, but its core technology comes from these two international organizations called ODA and ITC. ... Therefore, ZWCAD's software can be said to be based on the core of the ODA organization and an improved product of the IntelliCAD platform software of the ITC organization. ... In 2014, Autodesk, the parent company that developed the AutoCAD software, sued ZWCAD in the Netherlands and the United States, claiming that "AutoCAD source code was stolen and improperly used in the development of ZWCAD+.""
2. van der Velden, Ruud (2014-12-23). "Dutch judge orders disclosure of source code in China". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. Vol. 10, no. 2. pp. 83–85. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpu227.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In 2002, the Chinese company ZWSoft started to bring CAD programs on the market under the name ZWCAD. ZWSoft continued to develop the ZWCAD program and brought several different versions on the market over the years. In 2012, ZWSoft brought a new CAD program on the market, ZWCAD+. When introducing this program, ZWSoft indicated that ZWCADþ would be fundamentally different from ZWCAD and that it would have developed it ‘from the ground up’. ZWCAD+ could be purchased in the Netherlands through ZWSoft’s website. Autodesk took the view that ZWCAD+ was not developed ‘from the ground up’, but instead was based on the source code of Autodesk’s AutoCAD 2008 program, and that ZWSoft infringed Autodesk’s copyrights and violated its trade secrets. ... Autodesk initiated preliminary relief proceedings before the Provisions Judge of the District Court of The Hague claiming inter alia an injunction and an order for a copy of the source code of ZWCAD+ to be provided to a custodian in the Netherlands."
3. Sava, Alexandra (2018-12-13). "ZWCAD Viewer". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-09-06. Retrieved 2024-09-06.
  The review notes: "ZWCAD Viewer is an application designed to help you open and analyze or make measurements on plot drawings that you have created using various CAD software solutions. The program comes with a fresh and intuitive interface, so it is unlikely that you can have any issues loading or previewing the plots. While you can preview 2D and 3D models, the application is compatible with only a few file formats, namely DWG, DWF and DWT from versions R12 to 2013. ... In the eventuality that you are looking for a straightforward and intuitive utility that enables you to open most CAD-generated drawings and examine them minutely, then perhaps ZWCAD Viewer might come in handy."
4. Sava, Alexandra (2023-08-03). "ZWCAD". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-09-06. Retrieved 2024-09-06.
  The review notes: "To sum it up, ZWCAD+ is a comprehensive software solution for your architectural needs and it can provide you with a large variety of tools. You should be aware that due to its nature, this program packs several technical functions that can be difficult to understand if you do not meet certain CAD skill requirements."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ZWCAD to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, great job! Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources given are not significant coverage, rather, they all sound like promotional or passing coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jiemian News is a source critical of ZWCAD that says, "Based on the prospectus, Jiemian News conducted an in-depth investigation and found that ZWCAD is actually a product developed based on a third-party kernel, and the so-called "completely independent property rights" is out of the question." The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice article discusses Autodesk's claim in a lawsuit that ZWCAD+ was based on Autodesk's source code. These sources provide significant coverage critical of ZWCAD. Softpedia provides several detailed reviews of the product that meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews. Cunard (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. The sources presented don't seem promotional or passing from my look at them. The copyright dispute as well is interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to suggest Keep-voters avoid repeating "per someone" as it doesn't help the discussion. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Old-AgedKid How so? You'd rather we just copy-paste the unrebutted sources that CUnard has provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources given by Cunard look usable and seem to have WP:SIGCOV to me. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was return to draftspace‎. I've left the draft creator some detailed notes on the sourcing used for the latest iteration. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Corbell

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. This wa previously deleted via AFD and now, it has been recreated as a draft. I accepted it after many declined seeing that the editor wants this page badly, hence I recommend a community consensus again. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Procedural keep. The nominator has moved the page to Main through the AFc script at 16:43 (GMT) and took it to AfD at 16:45. This is not fair. Let them redraft it, at least!!! (A lot of interviews might have the subject meet the notability requirements btw) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: I believe what you're trying to vote for is a draftification or something? Speedy keep, in this situation, would imply that you believe the article in its current state is fit for main space.
@SafariScribe: What's up with that? You move a draft to main space and then immediately nominate it? Why didn't you leave it? Drafts belong at WP:MFD and it wasn't appropriate to immediately accept and nominate the article. Draft space allows people to work on the article to address the issues that existed at the previous AfD discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, no, I mean SpeedyKeep. I find the nomination caused disruption, especially considering the effect it must have had on the creator. I don’t think it is unfit for Main, no but I didn’t even check that hard, to be honest. I confess this is a very peculiar case. If it is moved back to Draft (the bare minimum), apologies and explanations should be presented to the creator in the first place, imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to apologise only if we can wait for the community consensus (basically the purpose of an AFD). The draft was declined many times and there wasn't any improvement if not resubmitting by the editor. I think the advice given to them wasn't enough but conclusions from an AFD can help them realize that. I also joppose this speedy keep above. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let me get this straight.
The draft was declined five times at AfC. Part of the issue seems to center around notability, but also that the user seems unwilling to accept that some of the sourcing is unusable per the discussions I see on their talk page. To avoid this being resubmitted you accepted this and nominated it for AfD.
AfC articles can be deleted at MfD, as that area covers the draftspace. I'm going to move this back to AfC, as per your words it does not pass NBIO. This can be nominated there for deletion, however prior to that I would recommend that you (or someone) make one last good faith attempt to let the user know why the sources are not usable and why it currently fails notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point@SafariScribe: WHY did you accept the page then? To punish the page creator?? To be able to take it to AfD??!!!! Oh, dear. To teach them a lesson and make a point? That's a very wrong way to use your tools as reviewer. I don't think you should apologise because the page might be considered notable, for example, no, not at all. I think you should apologise for accepting the page and then taking it to AfD immediately. That is emotionally very disturbing for someone who, as you say, has been waiting for the moment when their page would be accepted for so long. And of course, you would oppose a speedy keep: you nominated the page to deletion!!! there is no need to mention it! I, on the other hand, stand by my !vote. This is not the way things should be handled and this is in my view disruptive: you basically moved a page into the Main just to prove it is non-notable and should be deleted, disturbing greatly, I suppose, the creator of the page by this puzzling sequence of events. This is plainly and totally absurd and wrong, I am sorry. This is NOT what AfDs are for. And Drafts should not be discussed at AfDs. Please kindly withdraw this while it is still time, and explain your point to the creator, even if that means redrafting the page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination withdrawn. Should be draftified. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack, you may now close and delete this discussion. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The page has been draftified in the meantime. (And please do not try to close this as Kept. Rather Moot. I think the administrator who did the move should have done the close, but hey.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nepal Premier League#Teams. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Avengers

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

Non notable cricket team. IP editors keep turning the redirect back into article, so AFD to get consensus is only way to prevent this. I do not mind the redirect being restored so long as it is protected (to prevent re-creation by IPs or other users reverting the redirect again). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: NPL hasn't even begun yet; until it gets enough notability should remain as a redirect. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This team already participated in the Nepal T20 League and have many coverage article about it yet, redirect until tournament and others team announced and have enough coverage to pass notability.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This team competes in Nepal top tier professional league and also has already competed in the Nepal T20 League and have many coverage related to the article in Nepal's media. So, the article shouldn't be deletedMadeshirky8 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 17:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Petrenko

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

Tagged for unclear sourcing since 2014, but in reality there never heave been any sources as the external links are all You Tube videos of subject singing. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ukraine. – The Grid (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, as I could not find any reliable coverage to meet WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Leningrad mid-air collision

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

per WP:GNG failure to site verifiable sources and lack of secondary sources, as shown before, the soviet union was incredibly secretive and tight lipped about tragedies, especially aviation tragedies, that took place in the soviet union. Lolzer3k 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Lolzer3k 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago and generally found to be an unreliable source. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. I'll also mention that I'm not very comfortable with the fact that the article was created August 13, 2024, yet the citations to the airdisaster.ru website are citing an access date of April 12, 2013. This may be a machine translation of the ru.wikipedia page that does not appropriately give attribution to the original article per WP:HOWTRANS. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. ~~Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability.~~ Meltdown627 (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Dadvar

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

Tagged for notability since 2019. Relies largely on self published sources. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing turns up in an online search. It's possible that there may be good sources in Farsi that establish notability, but I'm unable to determine that for myself. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale. ✗plicit 14:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperBot Entertainment

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

Doesn't appear to be pass notability. Perhaps merging with PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, I am unsure where "iPad storybook app" CUDDLEFISH FRIENDS could be mentioned. IgelRM (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. IgelRM (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with PlayStation All-Stars as their only notable game. Does not appear standalone notable, and seems to have been made by a single-purpose account. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, their only notable game and what they're primarily known for. I can't blame the article creator for making this back in the day, as this was initially a big deal and it was easy to envision them becoming a major developer. But the game flopped and now pretty much everything noteworthy about them is tied to the game itself. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. The sources only cover them around the one game. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify, with mandatory AfC review‎. Seems to me that, despite the variety in stated !votes, we have a broad consensus that a) this needs improving and b) the subject has a reasonable likelihood of being notable now or in the nearish future. asilvering (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan & Roshaan

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

It was created by a newbie WikiProCreate (talk · contribs) and seemed PROMO, even though it had inline references. I draftified it so it could go through the AFC process, but the creator reverted the draftification. So, I have no choice but to nominate it for deletion. The page relies on GENREL sources and those from WP:NEWSORGINDIA and it clearly fails both GNG and WP:BAND. I also suspect it might be UPE! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup if necessary. Refs for Ms Marvel and teaming up with Shae Gill would tend to indicate notability to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SarekOfVulcan, Does the policy state that collaborating with other artists alone qualifies someone for a WP article? Isn’t it necessary to meet either GNG or NBAND to passes WP:N? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hassan & Roshaan are popular locally. Notability does not mean that a subject is covered globally. Local notability and noteworthiness are important. Additionally, their tracks and the band itself got nominated and was awarded by Lux Style Awards which is one of Pakistan's most prominent awards in the entertainment industry, this agrees with WP:GNG.. The subjects have been covered by Dawn News, Fuschia Magazine, and even on BBC's Asian network. If the grounds are that it the draft was moved to main-space, it was done after more references were added and part of content was altered based on the reviewer's feedback. The note mentioned moving the draft back to article space once it has been improved and it was done after changes were made. This band lies in the same category as other Pakistani singers/bands such as Young Stunners, Shamoon Ismail, Abdul Hannan. But only their track was included in an international franchise, Ms. Marvel (miniseries). Of course, changes can be made to improve it, but deleting it on unproven claims or UPE is unfair. There are more than 20 references added with in-line citations--and they are not syndicated coverage.

WikiProCreate (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: WikiProCreate (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

WikiProCreate, I've this simple question. On what criteria do you think it passes NBAND? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). (Ms. Marvel (mini-series and their song became an OST for a TV serial at ARY Digital)
Won Lux Style Awards

WikiProCreate (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. But I don't see it that way. Most of the sources are either unreliable or fall under NEWSORGINDIA. There is some coverage, but it is too promotional to be considered sufficient for GNG.
2. Please provide evidence to support your second point
3. I also don’t see evidence that they won Lux Style Awards; they were only nominated. Even if they had won, it wouldn’t be sufficient, as it is not considered a major music award according to NBAND.. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admin Liz already warned Saqib here [29] that WP:NEWSORGINDIA does'nt belong to countries other than India and not to use this as a justification for deletion in future nominations but still he is using this in AFD's related to Pakistan. Article clearly meets notability criteria Forbes, The Express Tribune, DAWN The Express Tribune. Also the user who nominated this page is on a spree to draftify new Pakistani articles whether they meet notability criteria or not. One can confirm this by checking his history. 117.102.55.117 (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — 117.102.55.117 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:PROMO and aggressive socking. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's promotional, but there are enough sources in there that at least appear to be possibly-reliable that they might sufficiently meet GNG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan, At first glance, the article appears well-sourced, but a deeper look reveals that the sources are either unreliable or fall under NEWSORGINDIA, which means the band doesn’t easily meet the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Drafify) Of the sources cited, only the Tribune piece fully meets the standard for WP:GNG, and it alone isn't enough, of course. (I haven't done a BEFORE, I assume the OP has.) I don't think there's anything in there that would satisfy WP:BAND, either. Therefore currently falls short on notability, but I've no objection to draftification if the author agrees to keep this in drafts and only submit to AfC whenever they feel like they've sufficiently demonstrated notability, so that we don't end up here again. (I'm mentioning draftifying because my gut feel is that this could be on its way to being notable in the not-too-distant future, WP:CRYSTALBALL etc. notwithstanding.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this does satisfy WP:BAND in this regard. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. Ms. Marvel (mini-series). It was in Episode 04 "Seeing Red." (Just for your reference: https://www.marvel.com/articles/tv-shows/ms-marvel-every-song-episode-4) Also, it became an OST for a TV serial at ARY Digital, a well-known global TV channel. (Just for your reference: https://arynews.tv/viral-sukoon-ost-starring-ahsan-khan-sana-javed-is-out/). If moved to draftspace, I will submit to Afc when there is sufficient notability.
WikiProCreate (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite what BAND #10 means. Someone going to a restaurant where in the background a song is playing is to me incidental music, rather than featured, and possibly done for the purposes of product placement. If this is their strongest claim to notability, then I don't think it's enough; in deed BAND #10 goes on to say that"if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" ('main article' meaning in this case being Ms. Marvel (miniseries), presumably). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
T-series offered to buy their track (https://tribune.com.pk/story/2445068/hassan-roshaan-arrived-with-a-bang-and-now-theyre-here-to-stay)
They were nominated multiple times in Lux Style Awards, considered a big deal in Pakistan (FYR: https://www.luxstyle.pk/lsa2020/nominees/)
Their track surpassed five million streams
They have projects with some prominent artists in Pakistan, QB and Shae Gill
They toured internationally for their concert in UK
Being in Ms. Marvel isn't the only claim.
Thank you
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say that the article should pass through the AFC process. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibear47, So are you suggesting that we Drafify it? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Wikibear47 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this article has been reported at COI/N Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#WikiProCreate. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was due to my username, which I have addressed there.
Alwaysinhotwater (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Victor Ai. ✗plicit 12:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terminus Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Not actually notable as explained by Patriot0239 and Jumpytoo in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terminus_Group. The last deletion discussion turns out to be disturbed by several sockpuppets[30][31]. 虹易 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 虹易 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victor Ai (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - concur with the above redirect as a suitable WP:ATD. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher N. Harding

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of signifiance. References are profiles, promo websites, passing mentions, raw search urls and interviews. This is for a WP:BLP as well. scope_creep^Talk 12:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sports, and Kentucky. – The Grid (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – References are passing mentions, people directory (radaris), etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhav Singh

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Whole article is made up of profiles. No indication of significance. Awards are non-notable trade awards. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page reads as WP:PROMO and resume. Sources are very poor and do not highlight any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as investor and businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G5 as a creation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balakashyap. asilvering (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baidwan sept of Jat-Sikh lineage

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

WP:TNT. Needs a complete rewrite, new title probably, better sources (I doubt the "Geospatial PDF map of the compilation of GIS data for the mineral industries and related infrastructure of Africa" has much to say about the subject). Draftification was met with hostility and claims of vandalism, so AfD it is. Fram (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, Haryana, and Punjab. Fram (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panam (brand)

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

Current state of sourcing and WP Before doesn't help to establish notability per WP ORG or NCORP. Promotion only J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company meets notability. The four references used are via reliable sources and provide extensive coverage specifically about Panam. A PROQUEST WP:BEFORE search of "Panam shoes Mexico" turned up 102 results. JSFarman (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
none of the 100 plus results meet NCORP criteria for reliable in-depth independent coverage. Passing mentions and routine only 2A02:85F:9A06:7C28:8C9F:F432:2C6D:64B7 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not passing. San Diego Union Tribune , Telediario Mazatlan Post , Austria, Xóchitl. 2018. “Él Hizo ‘Cool’ a Los Tenis Ochenteros.” Entrepreneur Mexico 26 (10): 52–56. (4 pages) (Via EBSCO). A brief result via Google books refers to Panam as "hugely popular the '80s, though their ubiquity dropped off after..." The company was founded in 1962. Look offline and online via Google Mexico. Pinging the editor who created this article, LeDeroider, as they have expertise in this area -- 26 sneaker/shoe articles, two of which have been deleted -- and can likely add more references. JSFarman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In concurrence with JSFarman. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Despite repeated claims, the Keep views have not been able to point to any reliable sources establishing the subject had significant roles in multiple notable productions, nor refute the source analysis presented here. Owen× ☎ 11:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Juliana

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

Bit part actor. Lots of social media driven puff piece, clickbait and paid placement article but fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Medicine, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ENT. Xegma(talk) 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xegma: How does the subject pass WP:ENT exactly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by scope creep (talk • contribs)

They have worked in multiple films and television shows. Xegma(talk) 04:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDB she has had a series of minor parts. No leading parts in any series or film. So currently fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: ACTOR requires significant roles, but not necessarily lead roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even in "Naan Sirithal" she is right down at the bottom of the cast list. I cant see how she is notable. Coverage is a PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That particular role is certainly not a lead but could be considered significant. See plot Summary. (If ImDb cannot be used to establish notability, I don’t think it is fair to use it to establish non-notability) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long established consensus states must be a lead role. On your comment about non-notabilty, you can't have both sides of the coin. This is where notability is proved, the final arbiter. If you have sources, post them up instead of relying on non-arguments outside consensus that doesn't add anything to the argument. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long established consensus states must be a lead role. No, that is simply not true. SIGNIFICANT, not necessarily lead (or change the guideline). As for the rest, no comment; thank you.. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes that is what it means. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Lead roles are all significant but not all significant roles are leading roles and to state it is the same thing is obviously erroneous. But I'll leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead roles are significant, but significant roles do not all have to be lead roles. That incorrect claim reminds me of another user who lost one argument after another here for insisting on that. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much a non-notable actor, with bit parts. Nothing showing she's had a starring role in any project, which is the bare minimum needed for notability,. Articles are simply confirmation of presence in various film/television projects. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable actor, worked in film and television in Tamil language in significant roles. She is well known in Tamil film industry. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is she known exactly. Can you provide three reference that prove it? scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actress. Fails WP:NACTOR. Poor to unreliable sources with 6 sources clearly unreliable and the remaining all are very poor with no significant coverage on the subject. These poor sources are all about how subject celebrated her birthday, thanking nurses on nurse Day, home tour and such. Subject has not made a significant achievement worthy of notice in her career and her career misses significant coverage in sources too. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: various significant roles (including in the main cast) in notable productions have her meet WP:NACTOR (and sources allow to verify this) so that deletion is not necessary imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We will take a look at the references today and where the person is in the cast list, since there has been evidence free !votes for some reason like to 2008. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. You can add if you have something more to it. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis
- Source 1 How the subject celebrated her birthday.
- Source 2 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 3 thanks nurses on nurses day
- Source 4 home tour for fans
- Source 5 routine news on someone being slammed for using profane language on subject
- Source 6, 7 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 8 Interview, why the subject can not go back to nursing.
- Source 9, 10 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 11 article on "did the subject apologize to another contestant of Bigg Boss Tamil 1 reality show?"
- Source 12 Subject dirty play against another contestant on Bigg Boss TV show
- Source 13 subject slams social media users
- Source 14, 15 makers deny the subject being part of their project
- Source 16, 17 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 18 subject posts a video of herself enacting a scene from a film
- Source 19, 20, 30 announcement about subject to make "special appearance" (minor role) in a tv serie.
- Source 21 about subject as contestant in reality show Bigg Boss Tamil Season 1
- Source 22, 23 subject claiming herself for getting a strong role in an unnamed film but the makers denied the rumors in source 14 and 15
- Source 24 announcement on subject to play a real life victim in an unnamed film
- Source 25 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES WP:IBTIMES
- Source 26 a TV show inviting the subject as guest
- Source 27 subject turning into VJ for a reality talent show
- Source 28 has no mention about the subject and is about the controversy behind TV serial promo
- Source 29 about participating in bigg Boss reality show.

Clearly nothing notable and no significant achievement in sources on her career as an actress. RangersRus (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. I didn't expect anything else. Lots of WP:SPS, lots of non-rs, PR pieces, social media driven refs, clickbait, the odd interview and some conjecture. All indicative of an actress right at the very begining of her career and indicative of being non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don’t see any significant coverage in reliable sources or evidence that NACTOR has been met (which would also require reliable sources). If a Keep !voter can provide refs to support their point, please ping me and I’ll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 08:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Nguyen

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. He does not have a single start in a professional football competition and the sources used do not document his notability in any way. Maybe speedy deletion per A7 is possible. FromCzech (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – He's actually quite well-known in Vietnam, due to his call up to the Vietnam national under-23 football team. There are a lot of articles about him in Vietnamese, which I believe do pass the WP:GNG. But as you mentioned, he did not have a single game in a professional football competition, and also no appearance for Vietnam youth national teams. I see this article as WP:TOOSOON . I think a draft is the best solution. Lâm (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like a single call-up to the U23 preliminary squad will make you famous in Vietnam? LOL. A draft is a reasonable option. FromCzech (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his case is particular. He was one the first Vietnamese diaspora player playing abroad to get a call up to the national youth team. That explains why he got a lot of attention of the media Lâm (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thplam2004: Could you link here to some of the biggest articles about him? That can help editors decide his notability. --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article from Tiền Phong covered completely his family background, his career and his journey to get called up Vietnam U23 team. There are so many articles covering the player such as 2 , 3 , 4 and many more. In fact he was called up to the Vietnam national team in September 2023 but he withdrew the call up (source) Lâm (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails WP:GNG without enough of a career to assume the existence of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources Thplam2004 just mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the references cover the player significantly and surely passes WP:GNG. However, what make me consider is that the player doesn't have much of a career, but the fact that he got call up to the Vietnam national football team makes it valid to keep this article. What do you guys think? Lâm (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeating myself, but passing GNG criteria is not confirmation of notability, and we are talking about youth team, not a senior team, and about a preliminary squad as he withdrew the call up, not a final nomination. And this is a one year old event; since then, he has not appeared anywhere. Given that no one was in favor of keep in the discussion before the relisting, a consensus is being sought whether to draft or delete. FromCzech (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wouldn't call this WP:TOOSOON as no WP:SIGCOV existed. In a general view, the article doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO and seeing that no coverage has ever existed, turning into a draft wouldn't help either. Pls delete entirely and went a little notability is sensed, an editor may commence from scratch or request the previous deleted information. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2024 Irondequoit stabbing and arson attack

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

Not notable event per WP:EVENTCRIT and looks like a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Four deaths in a stabbing attack is very much routine these days, sadly. Nothing to suggest this is anything beyond routine news coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A suspect, an illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic says it all; another article from the crime/alarmism part of en.wiki that insists every little crime deserves an article to go with their agenda. Stop it, this is a local news story and the creator knows what they're doing tossing in Fox News and New York Post sources and mis-using a sister station connection (WHAM to KEYE) to try to game GNG. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Unfortunately (in my view), such crimes are not unusual, and I don't think there is a WP:LASTING component to these crimes. Additionally, the sources provided are either local news sources, questionable, or unreliable. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 07:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCW Women's Championship

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

No notable pro wrestling title. Just an independent title with a few references, not proving notability. The main promotion hasn't an article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable. There wouldn't be SIGCOV for it's host promotion, nevermind as an individual article for just the title. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Practice Management Association

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

Refs fail WP:SIRS and so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mere 3 google news hits, unusually low for a US based organization. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduja Tech

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

Does not meet NCORP, no reliable sources; superficial and WP Trivial media coverage only J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, Transportation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺16:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Mary Sunshine

AfDs for this article:

(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, only mentions. None of the links in the article are reliable sources. toweli (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Washington. toweli (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more independent reliable sources. Xegma(talk) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that they survived an earlier AfD way back in 2006, when music notability requirements were far more lenient than they are now. As a pre-Internet band, they can be found in books on Seattle grunge history, but only very briefly in lists of opening acts or as the former band for someone who later joined a different band (e.g. [32]). Otherwise I can find no significant and reliable coverage of their career or pro reviews of their one album. They got a few breaks for being present in a hot local scene, but gained very little notice of their own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duong Thanh Tung

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. He does not have a single start in a professional football competition and the sources used do not document his notability. Maybe speedy deletion per A7 is possible. FromCzech (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think for this player does pass WP:GNG with all the articles in Vietnam's big football journals about him. He recently signed a pro contract with a club in Vietnam's highest division, and is registred in the squad for the league. His pro debut will only be a matter of time. Lâm (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, the sources used do not document his notability. Wiki is not a player database and a few possible starts for a professional club won't change anything about that. This player has not accomplished anything yet, and we are not predicting from a crystal ball whether he will ever accomplish anything. The page can be created in a few years, when he has dozens of starts, and it will be written about something other than his first pro contract. FromCzech (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Vietnam, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—Appears to fail WP:GNG, although there is certainly a career that may be documented and/or documentable. Anwegmann (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article has some sources in Vietnamese, have they been checked? Svartner (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article from Bóng Đá Plus provides a significant coverage about the player, detailing his family background, career, and playing style. Additionally, there's also the article from Dân Việt that also gives a resume of his career and his playing style.It's worth noting that the player recently signed with the runners-up of the previous season in Vietnam's top football division. This significant move, in my opinion, justifies why a player from low-tier Czech teams deserves a Wikipedia article. Lâm (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSPERSON: Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability. WP:SUSTAINED: There have been reports of him entering professional football, but that's not enough as he may not make it. I would recommend to draftify the page and consider renewing the article in a year, in two, depending on career development and other media reports. FromCzech (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - As proposed by @FromCzech sounds the better solution. Svartner (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Looks like he could hit GNG eventually but not quite there. Chris1834 Talk 19:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested above as well, I would be okay with draftification. Anwegmann (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. But this doesn't preclude a merge or page move discussion in the future. asilvering (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Melbourne Land Forces Expo protests

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:EVENT. The event is not notable enough outside of Israel–Hamas war protests. Coverage of the protest has been WP:ROUTINE, similar to any other protest that has occurred in Melbourne. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage of this specific event, in my view, goes beyond what’s outlined in WP:ROUTINE as well as beyond what can be described as “similar to any other protest that has occurred in Melbourne”. There’s been loads of mainstream media coverage, both national and international, in the weeks and days leading up, during the days of protest itself with all sides chiming in/being quoted with their perspectives, and even in the days following, coverage of these protests is still trickling in. In short, there’s pages and pages of coverage, news articles, interviews with mainstream media outlets, etc. This isn’t just once off circumstantial coverage - it’s been sustained and consistent. Geelongite (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GMH Melbourne: procedural query, did you mean to nominate this twice? Other AfD here — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: Hello, No I didn't mean to, my internet cut out halfway between twinkle processing the AfD and the popup box said to process it again. Should I close the first one? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GMH Melbourne: thought it might have been a computer hiccup. I think it's best to close the other one as there isn't any discussion there yet. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage of the protests was hardly routine - live coverage throughout the events, multiple heated responses from politicians and other public figures, significant debate over the role played by police. Also consider the fact that coverage was unusually extensive even in the days and weeks prior to the event. It has significance then beyond the fact that it was a protest about Palestine but also as regards questions of civil liberties and politics in Melbourne and Australia.

These protests were compared in multiple sources to the S11 protests which have had an article of similar length on Wikipedia since 2004. That article mentions the use of pepper spray against protesters, pointing out that at the time this was unheard of and supposedly banned. The use of rubber bullets and other weaponry by Victoria Police against anti-war protesters is similarly unprecedented today and I think another indication of notability. All that is solid melts into air (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could certainly do with some expansion to provide a more complete picture, but I think it demonstrably has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that the prime minister saw fit to respond certainly makes it stand out from other, more routine protests. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet notability guidelines. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the userpage of this contributer should be taken into consideration. Though it’s definitely possible for people with differing political perspectives to have an objective view point - it’s clear that this doesn’t apply for this contributor and their input into this discussion should, in my view, be disregarded. Geelongite (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geelongite, I'm not sure what part of their User page you find concerning but every editor who is not blocked can participate in an AFD discussion though we prefer they have some advanced editing experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But discussions aren't limited to editors with certain political preferences. I mean, if they asked the closer to disregard your contributions here, would that be fair? Trust in the closer to evaluate this discussion fairly, based on the arguments presented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment: I would not be opposed to a move to Israel–Hamas war protests in the Australia. Similar to Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an argument for such an article in its own right given the extent of this protest movement - however as mentioned above, the extensive coverage by a range of sources warrants the existence of an article on the Land Forces protests as its own article (and the Land Forces protests weren’t specifically Palestine - though there’s significant crossover). In short - both articles should exist. Geelongite (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree that the coverage was an example of WP:ROUTINE which includes examples such as "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine" and "Wedding announcements, film premieres, press conferences" and which describes "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". This attracted substantial coverage, far beyond a usual protest in Melbourne. Meets WP:GNG and was widely covered by diverse sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new, broader article about protests in Australia per GMH Melbourne's suggestion. Approaching two weeks after Land Forces, I'm not convinced this event meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE but I think there's now been enough activity to support splitting Israel–Hamas war protests#Australia into its own article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably agree that the event doesn't satisfy that particular criterion, but I think it shouldn't be ignored that it likely meets WP:LASTING (re: police weaponry and civil liberties), WP:GEOSCOPE (national and international coverage), WP:DEPTH (a number of articles examining the protests and their organisers in much more depth than any regular protest in Australia or Melbourne), and WP:DIVERSE. All that is solid melts into air (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed due to technical difficulties‎. A new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Melbourne Land Forces Expo protests (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Melbourne Land Forces Expo protests

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

Fails WP:EVENT. The event is not notable enough outside of Israel–Hamas war protests. Coverage of the protest has been WP:ROUTINE, similar to any other protest that has occurred in Melbourne. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connall Ewan

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found some routine transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and interviews (1, 2, 3), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etonkids International Educational Group

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

Rejected PROD. A really odd source was added after the article was dePRODded; an individual author is credited, but it reads like a press release. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to be found, fails WP:NORG:

the SCMP article[=https://www.scmp.com/article/650729/kindergarten-appeals-staff] is a recruiting notice masquerading as a news article. Based on the author's history [33] including a lot of recent advertorial stuff, this could be a situation where she was doing paid placement but SCMP wasn't always disclosing what it was doing. I'm just speculating but there's nothing in the article that suggests anything other than parroting their hiring needs and requirements.
the Sina article[34] seems to be reporting on a press conference they held to announce their name change, and lacks evidence of independent editorial judgment. This was added by @Cunard who is a wizard at finding buried sources for China-related articles, but we sometimes disagree about quality. In any event this would just be one article.

Aside from that, the only independent thing I could find was this that name-checks them. Oblivy (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "China Pre-school Education (Kindergarten) Industry Research Report, 2014" (PDF). ResearchInChina. November 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The abstract of the research report notes:
2. Zhao, Yuchu 赵妤初 (2022-09-06). "【教育有料】伊顿国际教育更名伊顿善育集团学而思网校推出国际象棋课" [[Educational News] Eton International Education Renamed to Eton Education Group; Xueersi Online School Launches Chess Courses"] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Eaton has established nearly 60 kindergartens in 18 cities across the country, with more than 13,000 students, more than 3,000 faculty and staff, and has served more than 150,000 families. ... Specifically, under the strategic layout of diversified businesses, Eaton focuses on three major areas: family scientific parenting and family early development industry, infant and toddler care industry, and vocational education industry. ... Today, Eton has developed into a diversified business group with childcare, early education, kindergartens, camps, vocational education, family education and other sectors."
3. Otremba, Jolene (2008-08-30). "Kindergarten appeals for staff". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "If teaching young children brings a smile to your face, then perhaps working for a fast-expanding mainland kindergarten will be an appealing career move. Etonkids International School, an international bilingual kindergarten, is about to open six more schools for its autumn 2008 school year and is in urgent need of passionate employees. Headquartered in Beijing, the school has branches in Tianjin, Nanjing and Shanghai, and will open more schools in these locations."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Etonkids International Educational Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit clash - you can see above about my assessment of #2 and #3. I think paid research reports are narrow-cast, industry publications that fail WP:AUD. Also, sometimes I think they are portrayed as having lots of content so people will buy them. Oblivy (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider research reports to fail WP:AUD. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says regarding public corporations, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

Analyst reports are "narrow-cast, industry publications" just like the ResearchInChina research report. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst reports on a public company, say, GM or Microsoft which might be of interest to many people. That's a different situation than an industry sector report which are targeted at selling just a handful of copies at a high price. We can't see how much material there is (for sure more than other schools, but it's a bit of a pig-in-a-poke) or where they got it from. Oblivy (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since editors consider the earlier sources insufficient to establish notability, I did a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first. Here are the sources I found:
1. Kong, Yue 孔悦 (2012-12-24). "蒙氏理论教育未来" [Montessori Theory Education Future]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). p. D21.
  The article is about how The Beijing News gave Etonkids the "Most Trusted Private Primary and Secondary School Brand" award (Chinese: 我最信赖的民办中小幼品牌).
  The article notes: "伊顿双语幼儿园成立十年以来，依据自身特色，逐渐在家长中间形成了良好的口碑，赢得了家长的信赖。伊顿双语幼儿园秉承正统的蒙台梭利教育理念，构成一套完整的幼儿园双语教育课程，使孩子们在不以牺牲母语为代价的同时真正扎实地掌握中英两种语言。他们还注重孩子们个人能力的培养。对于1.5至3岁的幼儿，课程重点在于培养孩子们的语言学习、阅读方面的基本技能和幼儿智力、数学、音乐、美术、科学、自然等兴趣的启蒙。"
  From Google Translate: "Since its establishment ten years ago, Eton Bilingual Kindergarten has gradually formed a good reputation among parents based on its own characteristics and won the trust of parents. Eton Bilingual Kindergarten adheres to the orthodox Montessori education concept and has formed a complete set of kindergarten bilingual education courses, so that children can truly master both Chinese and English without sacrificing their mother tongue. They also focus on the cultivation of children's personal abilities. For children aged 1.5 to 3, the course focuses on cultivating children's basic skills in language learning and reading and the enlightenment of children's intelligence, mathematics, music, art, science, nature and other interests."
2. Mao, Rui 毛瑞 (2012-11-02). "锦绣天下伊顿国际幼儿园落户锦绣华庭认筹"1万抵3万"" [Eton International Kindergarten settled in Jinxiu Tianxia, Jinxiu Huating's pre-sale "10,000 against 30,000"]. 三峡晚报 [Three Gorges Evening News] (in Chinese). p. A27.
  The article notes: "10月28日，著名的伊顿国际教育集团与葛洲坝地产锦绣天下项目签署合作协议，宜昌伊顿幼儿园明年将落户锦绣天下。签约仪式吸引了近400名锦绣天下业主参加，他们对伊顿入驻锦绣天下十分欢迎。伊顿国际教育集团是最早致力于幼儿早期教育的专业机构，目前已经在新加坡、印度、中国、韩国、日本、马来西亚等国家开设了58所国际学校和幼儿园，拥有5000多名来自全世界61个国家的学生。"
  From Google Translate: "On 28 October, the famous Eton International Education Group signed a cooperation agreement with Gezhouba Real Estate Jinxiu Tianxia project, and Yichang Eton Kindergarten will settle in Jinxiu Tianxia next year. The signing ceremony attracted nearly 400 Jinxiu Tianxia owners to participate, and they welcomed Eton's entry into Jinxiu Tianxia. Eton International Education Group is the earliest professional institution dedicated to early childhood education. It has currently opened 58 international schools and kindergartens in Singapore, India, China, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia and other countries, with more than 5,000 students from 61 countries around the world."
3. Guo, Guozhong 过国忠 (2011-08-29). "伊顿慧乐探索中国幼儿启蒙教育新模式" [Eton Hui Le explores a new model of early childhood education in China]. Science and Technology Daily (in Chinese). p. 7.
  The article notes: "由伊顿国际教育集团在无锡新区投资建设的伊顿慧乐双语幼儿园，8月20日开园。首批100多名幼儿将在这里开始接受与过去传统教育完全不同的启蒙教育。据了解，伊顿国际教育集团是由美国哈佛大学、美国西北大学凯洛格商学院校友会成员以及美国蒙台梭利的教育专家们联合举办的。"
  From Google Translate: "Eton Hui Le Bilingual Kindergarten, invested and built by Eton International Education Group in Wuxi New District, opened on 20 August. The first batch of more than 100 children will begin to receive an early childhood education that is completely different from the traditional education in the past. It is understood that Eton International Education Group is jointly organized by members of the alumni association of Harvard University and Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University in the United States and Montessori education experts in the United States."
4. Hou, Chunlian 侯春莲 (2012-06-08). "蒙台梭利教学法让孩子爱上学习" [Montessori teaching method makes children fall in love with learning]. Science and Technology Daily (in Chinese). p. 4.
  The article notes: "据介绍，伊顿幼教是目前中国本土第一个同时获得国际蒙台梭利教师认证委员会和美国蒙台梭利协会认证的学院，也是同时提供0—3岁和3—6岁中英文国际认证的国际蒙台梭利教师培训学院。"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Eton Preschool is currently the first college in China to be certified by both the International Montessori Teacher Certification Committee and the American Montessori Association. It is also an international Montessori teacher training college that provides both 0-3 years old and 3-6 years old Chinese and English international certification."
5. Zhang, Jinna 张金娜; Luo, Shalin 罗莎琳; Li, Dongyuan 李东元 (2011-07-22). "学校增多规模增大"足不出洲"读名校" [The number of schools has increased and their scale has increased. You can study in famous schools without leaving the island.]. Information Times (in Chinese). p. D2.
  The article notes: "伊顿双语幼儿园是美国蒙台梭利协会AMS在华唯一双子会员机构，全国十佳办学单位，为1.5~6岁的孩子提供在一流的双语教学环境下纯正的蒙特梭利课程。幼儿园实施由伊顿教育机构自己研制的英文、中文课程。在优质的教育服务确保孩子们全面发展的同时，使孩子获取流利的双语能力，让孩子赢在起跑线上。"
  From Google Translate: "Eton Bilingual Kindergarten is the only twin member institution of the American Montessori Society AMS in China, one of the top ten schools in the country, providing children aged 1.5 to 6 with a pure Montessori curriculum in a first-class bilingual teaching environment. The kindergarten implements English and Chinese courses developed by Eton Education Institution itself. While high-quality educational services ensure the all-round development of children, they also enable them to acquire fluent bilingual skills, giving them a head start."
6. Fu, Xueying 傅雪婴 (2013-05-30). "小小舞台" [Small stage]. Wuhan Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 47 宝贝计划·宝贝俱乐部.
  The article notes: "台下的家长们一个个脸上笑开了花。这是武汉伊顿慧智幼儿园第一次在园外举行大型儿童汇演。舞蹈喜刷刷、爵士舞、英文歌曲串烧……整个汇演有20多个节目，来自3个园区的260名孩子都参与了演出。... 该连锁幼儿园来汉两年多，采取混班制，0-3岁一个年级，3-6岁一个年级，因此许多参加表演的孩子还都只有2岁多。"
  From Google Translate: "The parents in the audience were all smiling. This is the first time that Wuhan Eaton Huizhi Kindergarten has held a large-scale children's performance outside the kindergarten. Dance, jazz dance, English song medley... The whole performance has more than 20 programs, and 260 children from 3 parks have participated in the performance. ... The chain kindergarten has been in Wuhan for more than two years and adopts a mixed class system, with one grade for 0-3 years old and another grade for 3-6 years old. Therefore, many children participating in the performance are only over 2 years old."
7. Additional sources that are either not significant coverage, non-independent, or unreliable:
  1. An article in the unreliable source Global Times titled Etonkids denies 'atrocities'.
  2. Koh, Aaron; Li, Ziqi (2021-12-22). "'Start-up' capital: cultivating the elite child in an elite international kindergarten in Shenzhen, China". Oxford Review of Education. 48 (2). doi:10.1080/03054985.2021.2013188.
    The article discusses Etonkids in a four sentences. The article notes: "The names of some of these elite international kindergartens are telling; for example, the Beanstalk Bilingual International Kindergarten and Etonkids Bilingual International Kindergarten. These two elite international kindergartens are established and international players in the sector who have pricing leverage (Businesswire, Citation2021). The tuition fees for Beanstalk Bilingual International Kindergarten, for example, are RMB180,000 (equivalent to USD27,792) per academic year while Etonkids Bilingual International Kindergarten’s tuition fees range from RMB 135,000 – RMB138,000 (equivalent to USD20,844 – USD21,307). ... Awarded by the Chinese Association of Educators and China Association of Private Educators, it was one of the top ten brands of private kindergarten in China in 2001, in the same rung as Beanstalk and Etonkids."
  3. "A Montessori movement: Vivien Wang '99 is building one of the leading early education programs in China" (PDF). Kellogg. Vol. 20, no. 2. Northwestern University. Summer 2013. p. 24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
    The article notes: "As managing director of Etonkids International Educational Group, a bilingual Montessori school she founded in Beijing, Vivien Wang ’99 leads one of China’s top early childhood educational providers. ... In 2002, with the backing of Sequoia Capital, Wang set about establishing Etonkids, a Montessori school for children ages 18 months to 6 years old. The school focuses on The Etonkids’ Three C’s: creativity, character and culture. Different programs and levels of English immersion cater to expatriate families, local families and a mix of the two family types. To assure quality, Wang refuses to franchise and established Etonkids Montessori Teacher Training Academy, the only indigenous American Montessori Society-affiliated teaching credential program."
Cunard (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of significant independent coverage in source #1 (Beijing News), and #2' (Oxford), with #5 adding a bit of coverage without substantial detail. Although the sourcing could be more detailed, it is sufficient to compose a verifiable article. This is a national-scope company serving dozens of communities. (vote change comment 19/9/2024)
1 - Beijing News[35] - this comes from an educational awards special supplement. It's bylined. There's an "acceptance speech" at the top but the rest of the article could be independent. It's all very praise-ful, but this one is weakly SIGCOV.
2. Three Gorges News - a property development got Eton to establish preschool in the development, but the mention of the school is really brief and probably from promotional materials they provided. No evidence of independent analysis, and it's not very long.
3. Science and Technology Daily - I couldn't access. The words "据了解" could mean they talked to someone from the school, or that they are doing independent research. It's just hard for me to tell.
4. Information Times -- seems regurgitated from the school (it's a vibe thing)
5. Wuhan Evening News - again, couldn't access but this seems like a report on an event involving the kids. It's actually kind of charming but it's still not a lot of content. So again weakly SIGCOV.
For the remaining, surprisingly I think #2 isn't a bad source - yes, they are getting information from the school but I think this is earned media rather than just regurgitation because Oxford Review has to put it into a common format. #1, yeah, good old Global Times reported online rumors about Etonkids; - that they picked the school as a target actually seems to support notability, but it won't go anywhere becauase it's a perennial bad source. #3 - no, this is from a person associated with the school.
So, on my reading, we have:
- zero in the article (per above),
- not changing my view on the research report especially since nobody on-wiki has read it
- three weak significant coverage (Beijing News, Wuhan Evening News, Oxford)
~~At the moment I'm keeping my vote at delete. But I will consider and would encourage editors to consider whether there are good reasons not to be too hard on the sourcing.~~
And as always, well done @Cunard. Even trying to find your sources online is hard for me, and I always appreciate seeing what you come up with. Oblivy (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- When translated from Chinese to English through Google Translate, The Beijing News provides 269 words of coverage about the subject (when including only what the newspaper said about the school and not the reprinted acceptance speech at the ceremony), Science and Technology Daily provides 126 words about the subject, and Wuhan Evening News [zh] provides 282 words about the subject. I don't consider this to be "weakly SIGCOV". I consider this to be strongly significant coverage. The sources are all bylined articles from reputable Chinese newspapers. I did not find any evidence that the sources were non-independent. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing found by Cunard. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ as the nomination was withdrawn. Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen de la Peña McCook

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

This article does not pass WP:GNG and contains BLP issues. There is no significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. It relies entirely on primary sources, and very scant ones at that. ~ HAL333 05:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Museums and libraries, Politics, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF. The distinguished university professorship likely passes WP:NPROF C5, even at a regional university. And I think the Lippincott award is probably a pass of NPROF C2. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The University of South Florida is a top-level public university (an R1 university), not merely regional. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. She also meets WP:AUTHOR, as her published books appear to be quite significant in the field; one of them has gone to several editions, and has been fairly widely reviewed (e.g., in The Library Quarterly, Progressive Librarian, and Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association). No doubt her other books are also reviewed in various places; here and here are reviews of her A Place at the Table, for instance. I'm not sure I see the BLP issues. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep through WP:PROF#C5, #C2, and WP:AUTHOR, as above. The Distinguished University Professorship was removed from the article by the nominator before nominating. Per WP:AGF, I have to assume that this was through the nominator's failure to understand the WP:PROF notability criteria (which explicitly allow primary sourcing for this sort of claim) rather than to obscure the subject's notability. Regardless, I think this apparent incompetence (and the failure to address WP:PROF in the nomination) is enough to justify WP:SK3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Agree with C2, C5 of WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, any one of which would be plenty. Qflib (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and suggestion that the nominator withdraw the nomination. I completely agree that NProf#C2 and C5 as well as AUTHOR have all easily been met. LadyofShalott 00:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is correct, sadly, in saying that secondary sourcing is completely missing. This could easily be solved by someone typing in her name in JSTOR to add a bunch of reviews of her (many) books, which is sure to be there. But that she is notable via PROF is clear. User:HAL333, please take User:LadyofShalott's advice and withdraw. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above, passes NPROF, particularly as several editors are actively improving the sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOWBALL. ~ HAL333 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Greek Philosophy

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article created by an editor banned for copyright. The first page of results failed to provide any useful coverage. WP:TNT also applies given the potential this is a copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philosophy. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete -- generally suspicious of "International X of Y" and look at the possibility of fraud etc., but Googling I was able to confirm that it is a society whose conferences etc. extend back into the 1990s (before predatory/faux academic conferences were generally a think we needed to look out for). Serious academics have presented there (https://www.lib.uci.edu/library/publications/philosophy/santas.html) and there is plenty of evidence that meetings have existed from back then (https://orb.binghamton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=sagp) -- from all this, it doesn't take too much citation of importance to show that this association (or at least its conferences) should be notable. (I have a low bar for academic societies w/ more than 25 years of conferences). Somehow though, despite all that, I cannot find evidence the society has made notable contributions to the field that would justify meeting GNG or a subject-specific notability guideline. I'm saying Soft Delete, because I wouldn't be surprised that someone (from Greece or w/ better paper archive access) could find evidence of the society's notability, and if that happens after the article is deleted, I would not hold this AfD (or at least my delete vote) against recreating the article w/ more evidence.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article had to go for quick deletion as all content is based on and copied from the association's website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallikari (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and copyvio. Simple copy paste article and barely notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ as the nomination has been withdawn Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaëlle Méchaly

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this now - I have located some reliable sources which I will continue to add as I expand the page.Chaiten1 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with references. Selected recordings listed, rather than a comprehensive catalogue.Chaiten1 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. @ Chaiten1 Thank you for the much improved article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Chaiten1 (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I understand the original close and the factors that led there. The sources identified, depth discussed and subsequent discussion lead to the significant coverage required to retain this. Improvement may be needed, but there's sufficient sourcing with which to do so. Star Mississippi 12:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940–41 Primera Fuerza season

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

Only very minimal content inside the article and has no inline citations. The one and only source ([36]) is by the RSSSF, which collects statistics of every football result. Due to it lacking coverage in sources, it fails WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious why you picked this season page out of all of them from 1902-03 to 1942-43. Technically there is nothing wrong with the article, it shows a historical table of what was then called an amateur league. However I believe the league did have good coverage in Mexican media. There maybe room for improvement, but in it's current form, I would combined all the league tables into one or maybe two articles. But historically, this league is part of the history of football in Mexico. So... also, how much WP:BEFORE did you do? I guess the coverage would be different in the 1940s due to WW2 and the political situation, so my bet is it's all about the offline sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are irrelevant anyway. It can’t be that significant if it’s getting 19 views per month either. All these seasonal articles should really be redirected to Primera Fuerza or deleted because there is barely anything in them in terms on content, which is why I picked this one because it has less content than the others, as well as barely any coverage. Azarctic (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primera Fuerza - possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Direct predecessor of the current Liga MX, there is a lack of sources but the notability exists. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the article in Spanish has literary sources on the history of Mexican football that seem credible to validate the information. Svartner (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources, and those in the Spanish-language article, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to be clear, deleting this article would also confer deleting every single "Primera Fuerza" season from 1902 to 1943. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this division is notable, and so are its seasons— important to note that it was the highest-level division in the country. Impossible for me to review and search all the Spanish-language offline sources, but the existence of sources such as Crónica del fútbol mexicano: Por amor a la camiseta and Historia General del Fútbol Mexicano and their usage as sources on the Spanish-language article suggest that they have material related to this specific season and the other seasons of this competition as well. Overall, it does us no good deleting this as it's clearly the highest level for football back then in Mexico, sets a bad precedent for football seasons in other countries too. The only reason this would be deleted is because it's hard to find offline sources, to dissect them, and to use them on Wikipedia. Which would be a shame. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And from experience, the RSSSF tends to be highly reliable for the tables of these older competitions. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see No consensus yet. I'll just add that we don't judge notability based on how many views an article gets per month but by whether reliable sources can demonstrate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable. Article should be improved. No one would propose deleting a 1940s England Division 3 table; nominations like this baffle me. Nfitz (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I closed this discussion as a Redirect but several editors have challenged the closure (which I will post below this relisting) so I have reverted my closure and given the discussion a final relist and will have another closer review this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was my original closure of this discussionThe result was redirect‎ to Primera Fuerza. Closing this as a Redirect as an ATD. Despite this AFD being open for 3 weeks, editors have failed to add a single reliable source to the article under discussion or bring one into this discussion so I can not close this as Keep. I encouraged editors to review sources in the Spanish language article but that didn't happen either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three additional sources in the Spanish language version of this article at es:Liga Mayor 1940-41. Two of them are offline (though I haven't dug deeply); but the third (a 286-page book discussing the first 110 years of Mexican football) can be reviewed at https://archive.org/details/oncedcadasdeftbo0000ramr. Aspects of the season are discussed in Chapter 9, particularly starting at page 77. Some of the references and bibliography at es:Campeonato de Primera Fuerza de la FMF/Liga Mayor#Bibliografía may also be relevant.

Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Paul (scholar)

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

No notability within the criterium of academic. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN DUE TO PAST DISCUSSION Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vector TDx

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

Got reviews from IGN and PocketGamer, everything else is an unreliable source or trivial mention. Attempts to find significant coverage in magazines failed. Doesn't seem to pass the notability threshold for a new article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Could not find more sources about this game. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to indicate it clearly that I'm undecided on whether the article should be deleted due to the sources I've listed below. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this might get there. Small review from The Guardian [37]. My read of WP:SALON.COM is that it's borderline as a source. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly small, so I won't immediately withdraw the nomination, though I do admit that it might push people to "weak keep". Now I essentially have no opinion about whether it should get deleted or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dug through the web and found few more sources: Four more passing mentions on IGN, JayIsGames (twice), Four more passing mentions on Kotaku, and a few more articles on PocketGamer (1, 2, 3, 4). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of newly found sources would be helpful to a closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD as a predecessor could be a WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing only slight mentions of that game in gaming magazines, though, and nothing close to SIGCOV. It seems non-notable by all respects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy women's national under-18 softball team

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

Unable to find any coverage to meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Italy. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already nominated at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely based on primary sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. as an ATD. Saying a redirect is "pointless" isn't really an argument against having a redirect and the subject is mentioned at the target article. I don't think relisting would come to a firmer consensus, there are just too many open AFD discussions right now to expect more participation here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Togo, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. 1 of the 2 sources is its own website, the other is the UK foreign ministry. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London per the outcome of literally every other prod and AfD about embassies and high commissions in London that has been closed after redirection was suggested, and a trout for the nominator for wasting community time by continuing to AfD plausible search terms with a very clear target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people suggest other targets like bilateral relations articles. There is no such thing as "speedy redirect". Never heard that in my 17 years on WP. I would have prodded this but one editor complained they need to go to AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you say will discourage me from nominating embassy articles for deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a response to my reasons for nominating for deletion. Do you acknowledge there are in fact more than 1 possible target if redirected. Do you acknowledge that "speedy keep" is only used by you and not a community accepted start for a vote? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the biggest time wasters are those who created these embassy articles as stubs and questionable notability. At least one of these editors is now permanently banned. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing what should happen with one article out of 6+ million articles on the project. We typically have 70-100 AFD nomination proposals every day. Let's all be CIVIL and not get personal here. We want participation in each AFD in order to come to the clearest understanding of consensus and disputes between editors tends to drive away editors unless they want to join in on the dispute and those are the editors who we don't want here. The focus is the article, not the discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another permastub directory listing for a diplomatic mission. As usual, no content other than what would be found in a database or directory. As usual, no secondary sources. This is not encyclopedic content. My opinion is that redirection is pointless, it simply isn't necessary. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I wish I could close this as a Soft Deletion but that is not possible. And the sources just aren't there. If an editor wanted to work on a new draft on this subject, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her career as theater actress and educator seems rather notable and her contributions to TV series/film might be seen as prolific. I haven’t searched for better sources so this is a weak keep. Would a redirect to the Personal life section in the article about her sister be an acceptable ATD? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and California. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. "Prolific"? Single TV episodes in about 20 shows and 6th billing in a film nobody's heard of denote a journeyperson actor. And being a high school teacher doesn't make her a notable educator. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a film nobody's heard of".....Except the critic from the LAT, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, practically nobody's heard of. In any case, not a major film, and NACTOR asks for multiple notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching newspapers I find her named in places like TV listings. These attest to the fact that she appeared on the named TV shows but those short sentences or two are about the plot and her character, not about her. These could be useful in recreating her career if there were also 2 or more substantial articles about her and in reliable sources. This I do not find. The sources given here are two short obits, an article saying that she won a student award (not notable), and a paragraph in a newspaper naming some roles she had in minor productions. I don't find anything longer than a paragraph, and nothing in major news sources. I can't find that she won a major award. I'll swing back by to check on progress, if there is any. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Unibuddy. I would like to apologize that this discussion was relisted twice and took so long to close. As I said, I think it would have closed weeks ago if participants had included a bolded Redirect vote in their comments. I think closers just kept skipping this discussion, thinking that there wasn't a consensus but that is just speculation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimeshan Naidoo

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

This somewhat promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, none of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. They are limited to WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:PRSOURCEs, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. His awards are the kind of "30 under 30" cruft not encompassed by the WP:ANYBIO award criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Dclemens1971, fair enough - thank you for your thorough reasoning and looking into it.
I was the original writer who put the article together based on my research on the subject. I'm a new editor so I'm still learning the wikipedia requirements. I also added more sources after your initial deletion request, but this is a good lesson in what sources are valid for me.
I would suggest we turn the page back to a redirect like it originally was before I wrote the article. It was a redirect to the Unibuddy page. Informedpanda (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept restoration of the redirect as an outcome here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I restored it to a redirect but you reverted saying this discussion has to close.
So I will let you handle the process going forward as I'm not familiar with it. Informedpanda (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, once an AfD is open, it has to be closed by a non-involved editor. This will happen in less than a week and since both participants support redirect I expect that will be the outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost 3 weeks now so seems like this process doesn't work well... Informedpanda (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are we lacking clearer consensus of? I believe the discussion points to redirecting this page to Unibuddy. If we think the article meets notability, then it should remain. If not, redirect should be implemented and we can close this discussion. Informedpanda (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both I as nominator and you as the page creator support a redirect to Unibuddy as suggested above. But it’s up to someone uninvolved (admin or not) to close it out. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informedpanda, it may seem trivial but could you offer a bolded vote like in most AFDs? I fear that closers scan over this discussion, see no "votes" have been cast and then move on to look at the next AFD. Closes aren't based on a vote count but it is a visible sign that the discussion is progressing. Make your desired outcome impossible to miss. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, this discussion could probably close faster if you provided a link to the preferred redirect target article. Yes, I know it's buried in the page history but if you identified it, then a closer would probably take care of this discusion sooner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz the other editor already mentioned it upthread. Unibuddy Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saheb Bhattacharya

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

No significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 17:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR, with multiple significant roles in notable productions. The article needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it fulfils WP:NACTOR, but the page should be enriched by more sources. Pinakpani (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very busy actor, well known and notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR multiple notable films played as main actor Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Prison Break due to insufficient sourcing to sustain a standalone Star Mississippi 01:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bag (Prison Break)

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

Fails WP:GNG not very much WP:SIGCOV mainly just routine episode coverage Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of reliable sources which talk about this character, displaying significant real world coverage.
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA: And there is a Prison Break character with GA status (that I don't even remember from watching the show): Alexander Mahone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. I have my doubts about the sources, but a merge is a good WP:ATD, and allows it to be improved. (And potentially split even if I do not see evidence of it yet.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr Sitcom. I also found mores sources including one from Screen Rant, which covers the character in-depth. Also got a source from TV Guide. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Valnet sources do not contribute to notability per Wikipedia:VALNET. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenVera

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

Non-notable product, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Tule-hog (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google News yield only 1 result. Fails WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia and equally important is providing policy-based arguments in deletion discussions rather than insulting your fellow editors. Incivility is not only rude it is an ineffective strategy to keep an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Tomas

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this soccer player in independent sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Connecticut. JTtheOG (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a quick little google search will tell you that he's played in two usl championship matches. omg i hate stupid people like you... -Soccerfan10001 — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL. Also, playing in USL Championship matches has no relevance to WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't care less about your "civil" stuff mate, also go look at any other player with at least one usl champ/league one appearance, they have a page. Ex: Scott DeVoss, Klisman Sousa, A. J. Valenzuela, Noah Abrams, and a bunch more. You gonna go waste time and delete those too? - Soccerfan10001 — Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Dong-woon

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Husam Hourani

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To 1984 AFC Asian Cup squads#Syria

Lâm (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. He played at two tournaments, so which do we redirect to??? Giant Snowman 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Giant Snowman. Svartner (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1992 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyong-il (footballer, born 1970)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To 1992 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea

Lâm (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lâm and GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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