Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 2

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 redirect‎ to Israel–Moldova relations. ✗plicit 00:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Tel Aviv

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

Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Israel, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to notable topic Israel–Moldova relations based on this article, with addition of copied content from Foreign relations of Israel#Moldova. Whizkin (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whizkin, Israel–Moldova relations is a redirect and should appear as a green link. It's not an appropriate page to Merge ontent to unless you want to revert the Redirection. But you should really check out the target articles before you recommend them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was fully aware of that, I am proposing to make it into an article. Whizkin (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if anything is salvageable. Andre🚐 18:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I have made a bold edit to create new standalone article Israel–Moldova relations. Therefore I change my !vote to Redirect to Israel–Moldova relations.Whizkin (talk) 15:04, 7 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. Sadads (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Stress Management

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

Clearly promotional, with none of the sources given being both in-depth and reliable. Tagged for G11 by multiple editors but repeatedly declined by the same IP user. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Websites. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not promotional. Please review. The page clearly abstain itself from referring to the website in the links. It’s only mentioned one time as a reference. :The other references are reliable. Some of them come from a published paper in a reputable journal. As well, as Feedspot. In what way is this different from Psych Central or Psychology Today Please delete those as well then! 12.40.131.195 (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I just requested deletion of Psych Central. You will see it won’t get deleted because it does not make sense. The page Try Stress Management is similar to the Psych Central and Psychology Today page. Be reasonable and review appropriately. 12.40.131.195 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Psych Central has 41 references. Psychology Today has 14 references. This article has two references, neither one of which is of any use in establishing the notability of this blog. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not promotional at all. The tone it is written in is purely factual. Only 1 link referencing to the webpage. The rest are valid sources. It’s a resource just like the one mentioned above that were never marked for deletion. I just checked myself [[Psych Central]] was unmarked from deletion. Be fair. And if you believe this page is promotional, do you fair diligence and mark for deletion [[Psych Central]] then. Helpfulpsych (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding the references given, they are all either non-reliable blogs or make only passing mention of the subject, which does not establish notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~How is an academic journal not notable for you? You need to fact check properly. Helpfulpsych (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - That is a single article in a newly launched online-only journal, not affiliated with an educational institution. It's registered to a corporate services address in Wilmington DE (see company address and [1], [2] [3] [4] for just a few other non-publishing companies at the same address). CIted once.
      Of course, none of this matters if the paper doesn't discuss the article subject. Which it doesn't by my reading. With zero reliable sources on a nakedly promotional article, and hallmarks of an article created under a conflict of interest, this article is a clear delete Oblivy (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most academic journals are for profit and not affiliated to educational institutions. Most open access journal are online. Please share legit information. These are not arguments. No conflict of interest here. Just hate to see one of my contributions being deleted when I spent time to write it. Helpfulpsych (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Even assuming this was a journal with a reputation for independence and academic rigor, can you point to the part of the article that discusses the topic of this Wikipedia article? Oblivy (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I side with keep 12.40.131.195 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It is a clear !keep by reading the wiki and the references. 12.40.131.195 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NRV. Notability doesn't appear to be evident from the references and I can't find any news articles about this blog. I also saw the rejected deletion request at Psych Central—comparing them is a bit odd considering Psych Central was named one of the 50 Best Websites in 2008 by Time and mentioned multiple times by The New York Times, according to their verifiable references here and here. Limmidy (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most importantly, it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Simply not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, realiable sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete I requested a speedy deletion because I wanted a second set of eyes, but the new editor clearly doesn't understand the scope of the wikis, Sadads (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, unremarkable blog fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in an online search. Wikishovel (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I saw pages less notable with way less credibility on here. I went and looked at the sources, it’s true that they do not go in depth, but they do make mention. Also the blog is legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.188.36.11 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, with three additional points. First, in 2024, everyone knows what Wikipedia is and has at least a vague idea of what it is not, so claiming not to know that is untenable. Second, this is a fork of stress management. Finally, the only reliable and independent source doesn’t even mention this blog. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - took some time to read through the article and check source. I disagree with above. It’s still relevant. And it’s not a fork of any other article here. It’s legit and deserve to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.169.54 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the references is feedspot and this is legit. They don’t give out top 50 blogs to anyone out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.195.128.138 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:SIGCOV and I saw IPs canvassing in the discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The article doesn't even have 3 sources, not to mention a top 50 is not WP:SIGCOV. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to multiple reliable sources independent of this blog and devoting significant coverage to this blog are added to the article. An entry in a "top 50" list in a blog about blogs is worthless for establishing notability. The closing administrator will disregard all comments that are not based on policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. As it's clearly not notable, practically none of the sources are good for even the general notability guideline. However, once it gets deleted, someone will likely try to recreate it, so I'd encourage an admin to salt it, just in case. OhHaiMark (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable whatsoever. Procyon117 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above and it fails WP:SIGCOV

Wiiformii (talk) 19:58, 6 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Eritrea, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 2 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) 23:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a {{R to list entry}} per all the other articles in about embassies in London that have been prodded/nominated at AfD recently. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer deletion to redirection? Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per and as described by Thryduulf. Dan • ✉ 02:40, 9 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!} 23:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranahedi

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

Fails WP:NFILM, no WP:SIGCOV anywhere, no critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kannada films of 2019: See article talk page...it would be nice if AfDs were avoided by using talk pages of the articles when notabilty issues are being discussed.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list does not currently mention Ranahedi. Are you arguing for a (very small) merge? jlwoodwa (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can not find a single reliable source in English or Kannada (ರಣಹೇಡಿ). DareshMohan (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage and two by filmibeat are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES. No reception or reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 21:32, 7 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!} 05:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Narayan

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

Simply fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Article does not speak for itself and sources from here and WP:BEFORE do not imply notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: does meet WP:DIRECTOR with two notable films directed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:DIRECTOR from long interviews. I've learned from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eashvar Karthic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DareshMohan (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now looking like a probably No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NDIRECTOR through Maradona (2018 film) and Nadanna Sambhavam. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:DIRECTOR and as per those two films. Xegma(talk) 13:41, 3 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITTA Foundation

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

This article is very promotional and written in a very spammy way. I have already removed a copyright violation but I cannot find any sustained coverage of the organisation that would help it pass WP:NCORP, save some press releases. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Economics, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article goes over a foundation. Many of the individual projects have coverage in reliable, neutral, third-party sources (especially in terms of architecture) which are cited. One of the projects is already a Wikipedia article and is linked to in the article. In terms of individual projects, there is a healthy amount of coverage online. I will add criticism about one project that was discontinued to add a complete perspective of all projects. — Note to closing admin: Starlighsky (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it is not promotion or advertising because it has a criticism of a failed project by the foundation. Starlighsky (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that the article was based on the GYAAN Center architecture. The reasoning was that writing about the foundation allows for the center to be written about: (External link) The Gyaan Center, a Sustainable Architectural Marvel in the Heart of India’s Golden City - Architect and Interiors India Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and RangersRus. Even if it’s not strictly promotional, it’s just tun of the mill, and not covered in a significant way in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The foundation is likely notable. If someone adds more sources, it would be very helpful. The editing spirit (talk) 07:40, 9 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!} 23:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 14

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

Unsourced compilation album that has no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NALBUM. cyberdog958^Talk 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. cyberdog958^Talk 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the only coverage I could find, and it is insubstantial beyond basic press release-derived info. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was for a good cause, but except for the brief announcement found by the previous voter, I can find no reliable reviews or other significant coverage. It only ever appears as a minor entry in the histories of some of the musicians who contributed, and those are just brief and uninformative listings themselves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 19:18, 7 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. There is a clear consensus that the article should not be kept. There was a minority position that the content should be merged into the parent article, but that seems to have been rejected by subsequent commenters due to a lack of usable prose to merge. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexicana de Aviación destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that

"Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, during the 89 year history of this airline, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press and local news (failing WP:AUD). Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. If this were a notable topic, I would expect to see a history of the airline covering its destinations - but no such coverage is present nor do I see it in a quick search. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Mexico. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT doesn't actually apply here, per the recent RfC. It's not a catalogue as it's not promotional, where an airline flies is necessary and encyclopedic to understanding the airline's scope, and it's sourced well enough that we're able to have it on the site. There's an attempt to exclude the number of news sites and blogs which significantly cover airline routes from ever being reliable, which is incorrect. There's also prose in the article about the airline's historical destinations which could be expanded. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”per the recent RFC” - care to give us a link here? I’m not aware of a new RFC having closed in this field lately. EDIT: and having checked on VPP, the Aviation project page, and the WP:NOT talk page I also don’t see one.
The prose simply repeats what’s already said in the main article. FOARP (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only RFC I can find related to this is this not so recent one that says that these sort of lists should not be kept as due to Wikipedia not being a directory. cyberdog958^Talk 04:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Obviously closers have to determine the weight they give !votes themselves, but a !vote based on a non-existent RFC should not be given a lot of weight. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is not a resource for doing business so NOTCATALOGUE doesn't apply. It is well defined and of limited scope so it is not indiscriminate. Sources do cover the topic, and even if alternative formats for presentation may be better, it does not need to be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The last 15 AFDs related to Airline destination lists all closed as Delete/Redirect/Merge. Since the start of 2023 more than 300 such articles have been deleted. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mexicana de Aviación#Destinations as an alternative to deletion – Not a notable list in itself and the references are all primary. However, whilst I don't have much of an opinion on this matter, in my opinion, the information from this article could be merged, summarised and redirected to Mexicana's destinations page as this would provide much more information and context to Mexicana's history as an airline, rather than splitting the section into an article with not much context given. (Based on WP:PAGEDECIDE). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. I see no need for Wikipedia to record that at one point in its 89-year history this airline flew to Random City X that appears in its timetable from March 1965. I regard this information as airline trivia. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very limited (if any) information is salavageable with mostly WP:PRIMARY references (Aeroroutes republishing airline schedules) used. A brief one parargaph summary of the destinations served by Mexicana in the main article may suffice provided it is referenced by primary and backed by reliable secondary sources. Coastie43 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's arguments are convincing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AfD record indicates a broader community consensus that such content is a WP:IINFO matter, and the quality of the sourcing falls far short of that required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:57, 10 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!} 19:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Boehme

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

Boehme played a couple seasons in the lower tiers of American soccer before transitioning to coaching. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ohio, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:GNG criterion and lacks WP:RS coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:35, 5 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.

Emily Schrader

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft was declined [5] in articles for creation by CFA. It was since published by Instant History but I'm not sure she's notable. Most citations are simply articles she wrote or interviews with her without any substantial secondary coverage from reliable sources. jwtmsqeh (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator was dormant for couple of months and out of sudden they appeared to disrupt this specific page by removing all the sources and cutting out majority of the texts which I reverted back and notified them on their talk page. Even though they nominated the page for deletion discussion they did not stop disrupting the page by removing important sources and the text to hinder the discussion! Note: The account was inactive, but it showed up today with disruptive editing to this specific page. The editor made more than 80% of their total edits just today with specific focus to this specific page which I suspect as an act of trolling.

Note: The article was declined by CFA not because it was not notable rather because of the way of writing which I cleaned it up. Instant History (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits can be seen in the edit history. This doesn't address the lack of sources to verify notability. It's all sources she's affiliated with or interviews. jwtmsqeh (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Israel, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The New Zealand newspaper is behind a paywall and the archive I normally use doesn't open, so I'll assume it's a good source. Fox News interview but goes into details about her [6], French magazine for Armenians [7]. I think with the rest of the sourcing used in the article, should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried a few other ways, it talks about her like the Fox News article does. Should be ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appear to be enough citations to establish notability for the subject, especially if the New Zealand Herald article checks out - I can't read it behind paywall or find it in an archive. Below are the references that in my opinion help establish notability. As another editor noted there appears to be potential vandalism of the page as I see valid content in earlier versions of this article not present in current one so I'm not sure what's going on. Nnev66 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahakian, Teny (2023-10-13). "Iranians are Israelis' 'greatest defenders' and 'allies' despite regime's praise of Hamas: Israeli journalist". Fox News.
Fox, Mira (2023-05-09). "Hadassah hopes its 'women to watch' list will freshen its commitment to Zionism". The Forward.
Lampert, Nicole (2022-03-18). "Me & You: Emily Schrader and Yoseph Haddad 'We argued about saying 'I love you'". The Jewish Chronicle.
Merlin, Ohad (2024-03-07). "Women from Iran, Israel call to denounce Hamas and the Islamic Republic". The Jerusalem Post.

Keep In addition to the above, significant coverage exists in Hebrew, for example on Mako news. [8], [9] Whizkin (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since passing the GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly I have misjudged this subject's notability. Now to include all of these sources into the article and cut the promotional content... jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:03, 9 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!} 19:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beefsteak Club (London) members

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Likely redirect for Beefsteak Club. Conyo14 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST as well as GNG. Not a useful redirect. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless list containing a single entry. No encyclopedic merit. Not a notable topic. A redirect is unnecessary and would serve no purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 12:41, 8 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!} 23:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McDonnell

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

Non-notable local politician. As raised at Talk:Tom McDonnell, in terms of:

WP:NPOL, subject has not held national or international office (Despite initial author's claims about subject being elected to "parliament", he is a local councillor who was elected to Newbridge LEA of Kildare County Council, on 11th count, with 548 first pref votes). While, as a local election candidate, the subject received perhaps slightly more coverage than some others, that coverage is mainly about the unusual nature of the subject's electioneering statements. Rather than coverage of the subject as a person/candidate.
WP:NBIO, and as above, the coverage available does not provide enough biographical detail to expand the article. To the extent that basic biographical facts (place of birth, early life, education, etc, etc) are not established/supported. (In fact, we only seem to know the subject's age because it was read into court records as part of a criminal damage conviction).
WP:NCRIMINAL, breaking another man's windows is not of "historic significance" to the extent that the subject gains notability for being convicted to such an offence.

TLDR: While the subject's name appears in slightly more news articles than we might expect for any other (otherwise non-notable) local councillor, the margins involved are small. And caused by the subject's unusual electioneering statements (and apparent petty criminality), rather than notability under WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOL or WP:NCRIMINAL.

(Note: If the subject was a member of a political party, I'd propose redirection to the "election history" section of that party's article. Or similar. As an independent, I cannot conceive of an appropriate WP:ATD-R target.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable local councillor. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Some coverage in local media due to his "colourful remarks" does not make him notable. Spleodrach (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Controversy doesn’t grant notability. (I’m not sure we need always even consider ATD, otherwise every local election article could end up full of linked names just redirecting to party electoral history). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To confirm, while I would sometimes propose an ATD (and had considered but then discounted it here) I'm not saying one always should be considered/proposed. As you say, we do not need "blue link" titles for all such subjects. Redirects or otherwise. I note, with some interest, that this councillor is THE ONLY ONE with a blue link in the "councillors" section of the Kildare County Council article. Which is kinda telling. As there is no way that this subject is "standout" above all others. Notability-wise. Anyway, definitely not advocating for ATD-R here.... Guliolopez (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a local/county councillor does not qualify for WP:NPOL. Azarctic (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Breaking someone's windows and making bizarre comments does not make a councillor notable, as noted a proper BLP cannot be built from the coverage present. AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AusLondonder. Even his alleged crimes are not notable. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 6 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 origamists. I don't see any objections to a Redirect so I'm opting that ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Robinson (paperfolder)

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

No reliable secondary sources. External links section points to a couple interviews, but just interviews can’t uphold an entire article. This deletion discussion is alongside Typhoon Saturday. This page was created by an IP address (IP is coincidentally is in the same place Nick Robinson is from), and was later edited by accounts named "Iamnickrobinson" and "Robinnick" a.k.a the most obvious WP:COI violation of the decade. Roasted (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Bands and musicians. Roasted (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional article (seems like it is mostly an autobiographic creation) on an artist does not meet notability criteria WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need more sources and sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 17:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find enough coverage about this person; [10] was the best I could bring up. Tried French sources as well as he's lectured in France, nothing... Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any book reviews, nothing in the Getty ULAN [11], so doesn't seem to pass artist or author notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this can be salvaged as notable. Many books on origami and he is listed as a contributor to the online Encyclop��dia Britannica . Heavy online presence as an origami teacher. I hope to take a longer look at this in the next couple a days. I ran out of steam after creating (losing and the recreating) the source analysis for Gar Waterman. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a review of his solo album by Jazz Journal. toweli (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect into List of origamists. I don't think a notable case can be made for jazz work. I cannot find reliable sourcing (reviews or works in collections) for a stand alone article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. He’s been the president of a club with 700 members. He had a jazz album that one person reviewed. He’s a nice guy. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. Have added a reference, but it doesn't take him near notability. Rather surprised not to find book reviews to consider him under WP:NWRITER, but as none of us can find them I think it's just not there. Tacyarg (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just to say, "Iamnickrobinson" and "Robinnick" are absolutely nothing to do with me - I'm not that naïve! I'm clearly no wiki expert(!) but feel having written 120+ books and being possibly the most published origami author outside of Japan should be worth a page? Maybe I'm missing the point of wiki. I have many reviews on amazon. There are more here https://www.giladorigami.com/origami-books-by/Nick%20Robinson

Googling me brings up 12 pages of results.

I have a parallel music career but don't know how (or if) this could be incorporated into wiki - your advice would be appreciated.

https://nickrobinson.co.uk/discography/ Robinsonnick (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

further: I have hundreds of magazine & newspaper articles, have worked in Japan, America, Dubai and all over Europe, worked for the BBC, Channel 4, Google, the Guardian, Kellogs, Verve Cliquot, Waddingtons, V&A museum, Xerox etc. Robinsonnick (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinsonnick, I'm confused as to what is meant by this:just to say, "Iamnickrobinson" and "Robinnick" are absolutely nothing to do with me - I'm not that naïve!, please explain when you find a moment. Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, those accounts are mentioned in the nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This was despite a previous AfD which resulted in no additional sourcing being located. Roughly half of the article focuses on talking about his family. The previous AfD had discussion of WP:ANYBIO, which despite incorrect statements to the contrary, makes clear that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ANYBIO does not eliminate the secondary source test. The lack of reliable secondary sources is also an issue per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping previous participants Sandstein, Necrothesp, Mztourist. AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails WP:GNG. All refs just confirm his existence and that of his family members. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons expressed in my first AfD nomination: "His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest." Sandstein 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To largely repeat my comment in the previous AfD: The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1, as we have rarely deleted anyone who was knighted for obvious reasons (in fact, we have only ever deleted one person knighted in modern times). Knighthoods are very high honours: they are not given out in cereal packets and they are given to people who are already notable (which is why they're knighted). This deletionism is frankly getting silly. How can a person who receives such a high honour from a non-tinpot country possibly not be considered to be notable per WP:COMMONSENSE? Added to which, the previous AfD was only two months ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply does not meet GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources in the article (and all but one that I could find) are primary sources, so this ends up being original research. In addition, these sources aren't "thoughtful" - they just state that so-and-so held such-and-such post. I didn't find anything substantial in those sources, they are basically "name checks". After searching I found one mention of him in a [12] book about WWI, but that was the only secondary source I could find, and it was only one sentence. Lamona (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV and not quite high enough offices or honors to be automatically notable for WP:NPOL. Even random strangers who I encountered on social media think that I’m a royalist, and I usually support retention of articles about royals, but this person doesn’t quite make it. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 6 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Saturday

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

I cannot find any sources on this band. Closest thing to a source is a blog music review. I tried to PROD the page, but the creator came back from the catacombs to remove the tag, then add a deprecated source. Roasted (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Roasted (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm was in the band and am NOT a wiki expert. I emerged from the catacombs when I read there was an issue. I discovered that discogs is deprecated (wiki didn't say which source was a problem & it wasn't in the past), so I removed that. I'm at a loss to understand why the page is not acceptable. Are you suggesting the band didn't exist? That three records on Polydor & that our drummer Titch subsequently selling millions of records with Living in a Box doesn't make it worthy of inclusion? There are dozens of entries that seem to me equally "insignificant" but still part of the music history of the UK. Robinsonnick (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NMUSICBIO. Roasted (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any sources with significant coverage of this band and it doesn't look like they ever charted, does not meet WP:BAND. Orange sticker (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band included some members that went on to bigger things later, but that does not make the band itself notable per WP:INHERITED. They had few accomplishments of their own, and I can find no reliable media coverage, even via a Google Books search because they were a pre-internet band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was a COI creation by a band member; it has been unsourced since 2013. I'm not finding anything to substantiate its notability in a BEFORE search that could be used to improve the article. The band is not notable per WP criteria as it has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in reliable sources that are reliable, that are not self-published nor user-submitted, and are fully independent of the musician or band itself. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 8 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!} 23:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Urban Debate League

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

Appears to be a non-notable club. Almost nothing found on google, all sources appear to be affiliated or local. Valereee (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. 172.59.210.195 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient citations to establish notability, and the mentions cited are trivial.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prue Bishop

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

This semi-promotional biography of an artist who trademarked her technique for, "sculptural watercolors" does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor for WP:NARTIST. She did not invent sculptural watercolor, she only trademarked her own specific method. An online WP:BEFORE search only found primary sources, many links to her own website, a couple Wordpress blogs, social media and links to a few things she has written. Thinking she might qualify as a scholar/academic, I searched for her h-index on Google Scholar and Scopus (zero); she has written a few articles on the artist JMW Turner, but they don't seem to be cited frequently enough to meet ACADEMIC. The current article sourcing is either primary, or unverifiable (other than her own website and her trademark). Unfortunately, as much as I dislike seeing articles on women artists deleted, I'm bringing it here for the community to decide the outcome. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, Women, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article for Prudence Mary Bishop by this same editor was rejected at AfC in 2018 as not showing notability. This is a second try, but I do not find any sources about her except her own web site. Many of the sources cited here are not about her but link to organizations that are mentioned in the article. Lamona (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. She might be a wonderful person, a creative artist, and all that, but unless we can verify basic facts about her, there’s only original research. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 6 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. Also noting some copyvio/copy-paste issues addressed prior to this AfD, so should this object be notable in the future, a complete rewrite would be needed. ^Complex/_Rational 16:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J151451.78+311654.0

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:27, 4 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 SimCity 2000#Development as an acceptable ATD. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Haslam (game designer)

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

Nothing notable about this individual (at least according to this article) Theknine2 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SimCity 2000#Development, which has the most information out of his associated works. Couldn't find so much as an interview. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've only found Kotaku briefly mentioning the individual, but no sources that would demonstrate that the person meets the WP:GNG criteria. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 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 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Split arms. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC 717

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. Apart from the SN discovery announcement, no significant coverage was found, even for "Arp 11". Praemonitus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 13:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Split arms. There isn't enough non trivial coverage. --C messier (talk) 13:44, 7 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PGC 4789

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 03:10, 3 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 NGC objects (4001–5000). Owen× ☎ 00:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 4991

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

Redirect to List of NGC objects (4001-5000); No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of NGC objects (4001-5000). ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 13:26, 3 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!} 04:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Bondi

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

None of the references in this article about a lawyer show significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add; I have removed two existing references which did not mention him. Article has been tagged as orphan for six years, notability and advert for two years, and was recently tagged with possible CoI. It was also recently cut down by another editor from a longer version with no sources, but the quality of those sources is not better than the existing ones. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I looked at this I thought it would be a straightforward senior-lawyer vanity page. I tend to agree that on his career alone, he gets nowhere towards WP:GNG despite having been prominent. There are a few borderline articles like this and this talking about him taking on clients and a court judgment relating to conflict of interest. But nothing that profiles him in the way this article does that doesn't seem to be relying on a press release and CV. Note that the article doesn't mention he's Pam Bondi's brother but that's not inherited. He also got coverage for endowing a scholarship.
Where there is substantial coverage about him is this WSJ article about his 330 acre property and graveyard (someone else's family, also interviewed). The story is also here credited to WSJ.
Cumulatively does this get him across the line? I'm doubtful but would be interested to see further views. Oblivy (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To improve the reliability of sources, it's essential to move beyond press releases, biographies/resumes, and articles drafted by the subject. The apparent CoI editing may be the most problematic. If the subject met WP:GNG, none of the above would be needed. Regarding the WSJ article about the property, the subject is a self-described contributor to WSJ. 2601:18E:C47E:CA30:28D2:4D3:69FF:69B0 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional evaluation of the sources brought up here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and based on my own standards. I don’t see him even having a single factor. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon consideration, notability isn't shown in the article or by anything I could find elsewhere. The house with the graveyard might be notable but that's not inherited to him. Oblivy (talk) 03:31, 6 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 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Auti

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

The sources are of mixed quality, a few don't even mention the subject, and the ones that do only mention his existence, frequently in a list. Little of the actual content even matches the claimed source, and it may be promotional given the username of the creator (speedy deletion tags were already removed once). Searching myself, I see little-to-nothing that could establish notability, and the article is so poorly written that there's nothing here that could be kept in a longshot attempt to build an article. The creator had already been told of the myriad issues at AFC. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not sure why my CSD nomination got removed. This page was previously deleted. And also, the talk page is a mess. Limmidy (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be speedily deleted. It was the article creator who removed the speedy deletion template. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Xegma(talk) 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there adding some reliable sources in this page. Can you check it. I think it should be ok to keep page Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to draftify. Note that the article creator moved the article to draftapace, removed the AfD notice, and c&p recreates the article without the afd template. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not a vote (since my opinion can be inferred from the initial entry), none of the sources added provide even a spec of notability, and they're mostly YouTube videos. Frankly, this is in WP:SALT territory. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wp.Ramesh Auti. Might be a candidate for G5 speedy deletion as well.--bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there adding some reliable sources in this page. Can you check it. I think it should be ok to keep page. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the new sources is reliable, independent, or in any way useful as a source. Here's an overview of the sources in the current version of the article:

Exactly zero reliable sources, and none of them has any information about Auti whatsoever. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bonadea's source analysis; no sign of notability of any flavour. (No objection to speedying, if preferred.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wp.ramesh wiki is now indefinitely blocked for persistent disruptive editing. ----Kinu ^t/_c 18:40, 4 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 02:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Eaton (actor)

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

Non-notable actor; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Roles have been minor parts. Sources are either primary (the actor's Instagram page) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of an upcoming supporting role in a single episode of an Outlander spinoff. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV to support GNG. Contested PROD so bringing to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON (if ever). Person has had minor parts in various TV series, although I cannot find sources that confirm even those. There seems to be a new series that he will act in, but that is in the future, when notability can be re-evaluated. Lamona (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too soon. Right now I see a single reliable source, Variety. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 9 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 agree that this has all the markings of an abandoned list split. But seeing as no progress was made in over a year, and no one here has volunteered to complete the job, we're left with a consensus to delete this as a duplicate. That said, if and when someone does complete the remaining decade pages, please ping me or file a request at WP:REFUND to restore this page and complete the job, linking to this AfD as reference. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939)

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

This article appears to be redundant to List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1999). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list does indeed appear to be redundant. Cortador (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be redundant. Hlsci (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom cyberdog958^Talk 20:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is an unfinished WP:LISTSPLIT. Given the size of the 1935-1999 list, it’s better to split. At least redirect, to keep history of the page, as that redirect would be super-cheap. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Splitting the main list would be better done in larger chunks than single decades. Reywas92^Talk 13:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of films by studios, when they are large, as is the case here, are ALL divided by decades (see, for example, Lists_of_Warner_Bros._films or Lists of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films). This split starts in 1935 for obvious historical reasons. So that this split is the standard, its deletion would be an unexplainable exception. Now, the split of Century Fox is not complete but deleting this part will not help. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Lists_of_20th_Century_Studios_films to understand why this page exists (and the navbox about the same topic). What should be done is creating lists for still missing decades. Not deleting this.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list split of List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1999) seems warranted and I am persuaded by the argument that decades are a good way to split. The individual decades certainly seem to have plenty of movies listed in them. Though it would be good for the split to be actually concluded, especially since it (or something else?) seems to be messing up the {{20th Century Studios}} template at the bottom of the pages. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:50, 9 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. In the absence of evidence proving the contrary, the editors arguing that there is insufficient significant coverage to satisfy notability guidelines prevail. ✗plicit 14:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiller Air Tug

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

Article with highly promo style about a proposed helicopter (1965) that was never funded. I don't see anything to merge into the existing page on Hiller Aircraft, so it should be a standard delete for WP:What Wikipedia is not. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Aviation. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that it is a promotional style.

I'm not associated with Hiller and I'm not even American. Just an Aerospace engineer but it was a very impressive and interesting concept worthy of retention.

Considering the items that are considered worthy for retention such as minor celebrities etc this clears the bar with a wide margin. JPelham (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be cleaned of advertising content. But the subject of the article itself meets GNG--Loewstisch (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loewstisch, how can a proposed helicopter that was never built meet GNG? There is not SIGCOV, and I cannot see a proposal that funders decided not to support as satisfying any GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm willing to be wrong, but there's a lack of content on the page or easily found that indicate this meets WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s quite interesting, but there is no way to verify the information. I’m not against a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 9 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 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bonette

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

Bonette played a few games in the second tier of Uruguay and then disappeared. I can find some light coverage in youth football match reports but not much else. For example, PYD 1 is just a squad list and PYD 2 mentions him as a goalscorer and also lists him in a squad. Tenfield was the best that I could find but it's a very brief story about him training in the park during the COVID lockdown and doesn't warrant an article about Bonette. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The relevance of the sources proposed by Karl Twist has not been substantially addressed or refuted. Sandstein 06:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Dust

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

The sources listed here provide little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the band. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the group has released records on three notable record labels, BASF, Trend, Uni. Plus they have two notable members, Alan King and Paul Carrack.
Karl Twist (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not WP:INHERITED, saying a band is notable because it was involved in notable things is almost the definition of this, although these may be a good place to look for sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most times when there are two or more notable people in a band that's a consideration of notability. Another consideration is that the band or artist has had two record albums released on two notable record labels. So using the Inherited thing is not really right. And this band would be triply notable if I could get hold of the continental rock magazines and books because that's where they were more popular. If you have a look in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Warm Dust section, you can see that I have dropped in a link. They made a splash when they were seen by Pope Paul VI. (I think that was the correct Pope)
Karl Twist (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous Karl is making valid arguments under WP:BAND#c5 and c6. That isn't an absolute case against deletion, but it isn't fallacious. Mach61 13:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might look again later but there's this (page 13) in Disc and Music Echo. A lot of what I'm finding merely mentions the band once. toweli (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Toweli, Hi thanks for the Disc and Music Echo "Warm Dust `back' Lennon" article link. That got me searching and I've found a few more articles now. I found the Record Mirror, October 9, 1971 article "Warm Dust slam the British mass media" on page 23, Melody Maker, July 25, 1970, News in Brief, Warm Dust section, Page 35, Melody Maker, May 1, 1971 "No Dust on peace show" article on Page 4, and the Melody Maker, January 30, 1971 article, War, Peace and Warm Dust article by Andrew Means on Page 11. So we have five articles on the group plus there's other stuff in newspaper archives that I can't access. One has to subscribe to them.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; in response to my above comment defending Karl, I note again that WP:NMUSIC is not absolute (conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept). Aside from the stunt with Pope John, this band seems to be a footnote in the Paul Carrack story; I can't find anything usable for WP:GNG purposes, nor even WP:RS that go into enough depth for me to think this article should stick around. An article should never have to rely on unreliable blogs or be composed of facts from a bunch of miscellanious stray mentions in RS, which is all this band has. Mach61 19:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Warm Dust to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if a consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider the option of redirecting rather than deleting? This way we can preserve the history and links. There are a number of possibilities. There is Paul Carrack in his Career section, Ace, and there's Alan King etc. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karl Twist we can't really do that, see WP:XY Mach61 12:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we can. It's done all the time and there is already a section for the Warm Dust group on Carrack's page. I didn't make it. Karl Twist (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect--He's always been dismissive of them, but brief mentions of the band have appeared in RS on Carrack for five decades. A 1982 Rolling Stone profile mentions that their "major [sic] to fame was a psychedelic antiwar LP". The only early 1970s things I found were short articles or reviews in Kensington and Chelsea News, Daily Post (Liverpool), and The Oregon Journal. Caro7200 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources linked by Karl Twist. toweli (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the sources identified in this discussion by Karl Twist and Caro 7200 including reliable newspapers and magazines that together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's sufficient coverage now referenced to evidence the notability of the subject and to sustain an article. Good work by @Karl Twist. ResonantDis_tortion 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, @ResonantDistortion:, thanks. It was a bit of a job. It was @Toweli: with the Disc and Music Echo "Warm Dust `back' Lennon" article link. That got me keen to find more. I realize that I needed to search deeper. And then I found stuff that I had missed. Cheers
  Karl Twist (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term is apparently used in astronomy, that's all Gbooks brings up. I don't find any sources otherwise, and what's been presented is brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Just a post to show where I'm up to so far as per the table below.

OK, the first seven in the table are articles about Warm Dust. There's another one in the British Newspaper archive but I can't read the title. All reliable sources. I may have a look around later to see if I can fine more.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything particular strong, but maybe an WP:ATD is possible. For your above suggestion, which talk about Paul Carrack specifically? IgelRM (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi IgelRM. Well, Paul Carrack is the man people think of most when they talk about Warm Dust. Carrack was also a member of the Milwaukee Coasters who according to John Surguy was the band that Warm Dust evolved out of. See: John Surguy - Warm Dust Interview — The Self Portrait Gospel. And I imagine this is the same UK group that recorded for the Pama Records label. As Carrack was a major player in the band it would make sense that a re-direct would go to him if the Warm Dust page was somehow deleted.
That being said, I can't see how it should be deleted when with the seven articles I provided in the table above prove that it has passed the below,

Wikipedia:BAND#C1 with it being the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" etc. etc.
Wikipedia:BAND#C5 as they have had releases on BASF, Metronome, Stateside, Trend and Uni labels. So that should satisfy the requirement of having "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" etc. etc.
Wikipedia:BAND#C6 as Paul Carrack, Alan King are notable. And quite likely Keith Bailey would be too. So that satisfies the requirement of Warm Dust being "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians".
Wikipedia:BAND#C10 as they have been on the Beat-Club show where they performed the Richie Havens classic "Indian Rope Man" and "Warm Dust Worm Dance" Parts 1 & 2. They have been on multiple other German and possibly other Euro country television broadcasts. That could satisfy " performance in a television show or notable film". It is possible that they may even qualify for Wikipedia:BAND#C12 but I can't access info on German or Dutch TV shows.

Now, it's been said elsewhere on this page that the article relied on "unreliable blogs or be composed of facts from a bunch of miscellanious stray mentions". Well, I've gotten rid of all of those so-called "unreliable", possibly bar one or two which are in unison with a reliable source. And none of the seven articles about Warm Dust in the above table I provided are stray mentions. They are articles about the band. And the other three are reviews on their work. Definitely not stray mentions! And page 16 of the 28 November, 1970 Fleetwood Mac article preserved on the website about the lovely Joni Mitchell is not stray mention either. While it appears to be no more than 100 words, the title is misleading. It is more about Warm Dust than it is Fleetwood Mac! And the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music Warm Dust entry which I haven't added to the page is something that I would call useful at the very least.

As you can see, this is what the page looked like, or you can see it alternatively here (Example 1) when the AFD tag was applied.
When I cleaned it up a fair bit and added better refs, it now looks like this, or you can see it alternatively here (Example 2)

Well, I can say that there's more than sufficient proof now that the article qualifies as a keep.

Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Karl these citations are more than brief mentions. Furthermore I've just added an album review in an independent German periodical here. Evidence that further coverage is highly likely in non-English sources. ResonantDis_tortion 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of music press and some general press coverage about the band from 1970-1972; I've just added another ref about meeting the Pope from The Times. Adam Sampson (talk) 09:55, 4 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 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Reyaan

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

I can't find coverage significant enough for WP:SPORTBASIC. All I could find was Republika, JPNN and Viva but none of them address Mario Reyaan in significant detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:47, 3 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 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luzinho

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

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Luzinho needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I could find nothing other than database sources like the ones already referenced in the article, even when searching in conjunction with his country and Casuarina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:58, 2 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 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Schaefer

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

9 references and they are all interviews. I cannot find any additional coverage aside from more interviews. Does not meet WP:NBIO. Broc (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Switzerland. Broc (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing here or elsewhere suggests this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 8 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 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamberto Gama

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

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Gama needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I could find NFT, which is just a database source, and ASEAN Football, which is just a squad listing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources added after the existing source till now. Xegma(talk) 13:52, 3 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 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sumah

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

Simply fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Standing in the 2024 Ghanian general election doesn't make him notable, and does not qualify for WP:NPOL. Azarctic (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this is literally just "he is a presidential candidate, the end", and doesn't even try to document any possible reasons why he might already have had preexisting notability for other reasons besides a candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 5 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 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Windhoek

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

Article merely confirms it exists. No third-party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Germany. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --92.77.57.69 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information that Germany has an embassy in Windhoek is already stated in the article Germany–Namibia relations. There isn't enough info for a separate article on the embassy. I note, however, that a search in Google brings up a long-ish generated info box that, of course, includes this text. I don't know what will happen after this is deleted but I don't think that we should be writing for Google's displays. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Germany-Namibia relations already states that it exists, and it is not notable enough to have its own article. Hlsci (talk) 12:19, 2 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 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waris Islam

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

Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Theatre, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability and vaguely promotional article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:21, 2 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 14:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vera Monroig

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A mayor of Adjuntas needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to merit a standalone article, Monroig does not pass any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Puerto Rico. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination above, and because this is essentially one big BLP violation En Español, wrapped in a burrito of OR. He was convicted of some unmentionable behavior towards an employee, but that’s the only sourced data in the stub. Having a single source, even if reliable (which I don’t concede), is by definition original research, which Wikipedia has never published. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, he's been involved in lawsuits [13], but nothing terribly notable from what I could understand of it.. Sourcing used in the article now seems unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 2 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. If someone wants to actively work on this to improve it, I'm happy to draftify. Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Vada Vala

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

Simply fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sources are not helpful toward establishing notability on this subject, the ones from WP:BEFORE are not helpful either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (and WP:CREATIVE with 2 written). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. None of his work is widely cited and significantly well-known that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Only exception is film Samandar that has barely two reviews and I could not find any more. The subject has not won significant critical attention for his work. The sources on the pages lack significant coverage on the career of the subject and are more on actor'debut, title track, unveiling of teaser, claim of audience reaction, unreliable source like filmytown.com and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it needs more sources. Xegma(talk) 14:04, 2 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. Due to lack of participation Malinaccier (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Bravo Moreno

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Mexican volleyball player to warrant a stand-alone article, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Possible redirect targets include Mexico men's national volleyball team and 2022 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship squads. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was elected as the best at his position (libero) at a continental championship - seems to match "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." from the linked sports criteria. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word here is likely, as in the subject is likely to have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources by achieving this sporting success. No such coverage has been found. JTtheOG (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship squads: Like the nom I don't see the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should better sources emerge. Let'srun (talk) 21:08, 8 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. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. This does not preclude a merger if someone thinks it's better covered there, and a talk page discussion can facilitate this. Star Mississippi 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDICT. The article is not encyclopedic and simply repeatedly states that the word is proscribed. Searching Google for "irregardless" brings up mostly brief pages from dictionaries providing definitions or similarly stating that the word is proscribed but attested. Searching JSTOR gives similar results, and none focus substantially on "irregardless". The encyclopedic content of this article is covered at List of common misconceptions and some of it could be merged to Common English usage misconceptions. Otherwise, the article should redirect to Wiktionary. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, FWIW I believe that if this article is deleted it has to be removed from the misconception article because the inclusion criteria for that page necessitates the misconception having a main topic article. So if we delete this page it will not be covered anywhere onwiki. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of common misconceptions requires each category to have its own article, but not individual misconceptions within the category. The section mentioning "irregardless" only needs an article on Common English usage misconceptions to exist, not one specifically on "irregardless". There are many misconceptions there that do not have their own article - there is no article on rice killing birds, hippos having pink milk, etc. The Common English usage misconceptions article does not have the same guidelines, so the content of the Irregardless article could be abbreviated and moved there. A list article like these is probably the best place for information like this. Masskito (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Common English usage misconceptions article is scoped very weirdly and this would just make it worse, so I oppose a merge there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there's enough coverage already on the page for a word as subject article. More to the point, it's highly suspicious that nominating this page for AFD was this user's very first edit. I'm going to mark this page as {{checkuser needed}} because I believe this user could be a sockpuppet of Riposte97, who made similar extreme attempts to apply the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule (it's relatively unlikely if you take this ANI at face value, but ... stranger things have happened). Graham87 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about this off-wiki and my interlocutor said that maybe it could be Chamaemelum who has edited there previously. Graham87 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, likely to English usage controversies or 'Common English usage misconceptions'. Although there are currently 13 cited references, 12 of those are dictionaries or writing guides. The other historical citation apparently used the word rather than discussing it as a subject. Current content of the article includes etymology and usage (contra WP:NOTDICT), as well as a general discussion of prescriptive lexicography, which might be better handled else (and is treated at 'English usage controversies'). I don't see potential for extensive treatment beyond dictionary-type discussion. Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graham87 above. The word itself has had enough of a cultural impact that is notable on its own. cyberdog958^Talk 04:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for secondary sources, I just can't find any that focus substantially on "irregardless". Most of them are either from dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, cover prescriptivism in language generally and only mention "irregardless" as a single example
(JSTOR, The English Journal), or use the word instead of mentioning it, (such as this short story), which does contain a single mention of "irregardless" not "being a word", but is otherwise irrelevant. While the word "irregardless" can be found in several reliable secondary sources, its coverage is not substantial, and does not pass WP:GNG. Masskito (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borked links, sorry
Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
JSTOR English Journal: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30046592
JSTOR short story: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20134975 Masskito (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NOTDICT doesn't prohibit us from having an article about a word or a phrase. In fact, WP:WORDISSUBJECT specifically allows it. The content of this article goes well beyond a dictionary definition, and sources seem to support its notability. I don't think it really fits inside English usage controversies, so merger isn't the best approach here. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources support its notability? All but one of the sources linked on the page are from dictionaries, as Cnilep mentioned above, and the only sources I could find (again, above) simply listed "irregardless" as one of several proscribed but attested words - hardly WP: SIGCOV. The encyclopedic content of the article mostly just states "it's proscribed but attested" and gives a brief overview of prescriptive and descriptive lexicography. This could easily be shortened to be merged to Common English usage misconceptions, if not English usage controversies, or even Wiktionary. I didn't nominate the page because it's about a word; I nominated it because it seems to lack enough coverage to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Masskito (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, irregardless. It is covered in this Wall Street Journal article. BD2412 T 01:42, 10 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. Per the withdrawal of the nomination by the nominator and the Keep votes (non-admin closure) The editing spirit (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ahmed

I withdraw my nomination : Upon further consideration and review of additional sources--Loewstisch (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:BIO Loewstisch (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xegma(talk) 13:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the page. I've added multiple additional sources from reputable media sources to reach basic criteria of notability. Is there any additional feedback you can provide on why you think this should be deleted?

I believe this flag for deletion should be removed as the page meets the WP:BIO standards. Ahmed has been "subject to significant press coverage and has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." His contributions to the large fitness wearable sector are notable, given that he created novel wearable technology and founded an accompanying wearable company that has become the most valuable standalone wearables company. He also makes notable comments about the industry frequency (including some of his controversial comments on Amazon/Alexa, which the wiki page cites). The world's most followed person (Cristiano Ronaldo) wears the his technology, as well as Virat Kohli (the most followed Indian individual on Instagram). This page on Ahmed will help provide the Wikipedia viewers context on Ahmed. Thanks for considering. Wghgljsj (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bolding my perspective per the above in line with AfD process. Thanks. Wghgljsj (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources and significant coverage of the subject have been added since the nomination, so it should now be kept. --美しい歌 (talk) 05:48, 7 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!} 08:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilant Hasaj

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

Only played in a semi-pro second tier, with match attendance in the hundreds, and hasn't played that regularly there either. Of the sources currently in the article, one is not significant coverage and the other even less so in that it only mentions his name. Then there are these, which have the Wordpress icon, i.e. closer to blogs. This one timed out on me and I couldn't access it. Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:57, 2 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!} 08:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Quintero (footballer, born 2001)

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

I can't find any significant independent coverage, and if you can't either, then the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:28, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Archers Philippines

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

This article sounds like a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST as the article sounds like an WP:ADS. I search it on google, found only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS about the organizations. The sources provided in the article is unreliable and the 1st one is just straight up garbage. Therefore this article fails WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I note for the record that this is a very small organization with fewer than 1,000 followers on social media. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 6 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 Malvern College#Overseas campuses. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern College Chengdu

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

A search for sources in English and Chinese in google news did not come up with enough to meet WP:NSCHOOL. As it stands, this article is based on its own website. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Search performed yielded no useful results. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Malvern College#Overseas campuses per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are two sources I found about the subject:
1. "Malvern College Chengdu". China Daily. 2019-07-09. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.
  The article notes: "Malvern College Chengdu, which opened in 2015, is a British international school, providing the 12-year elementary, middle and high school education. It is affiliated to Malvern College in the United Kingdom as one of its branch schools in China. The school boasts good facilities and teaching environment. Located beside Chengdu Botanical Garden, the school covers an area of 150 mu (10 hectares), with its green area exceeding 65 percent. Built in British style, it is equipped with an outdoor amphitheater, mini golf course, science laboratories and basketball courts."
2. Hale, Robert (2018-02-10). "Famous Malvern school opens up new campus in China". Worcester News. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.
  The article notes: "Trade secretary Liam Fox MP was one of the witnesses when Malvern College signed an agreement to open its latest overseas venture. Mr Fox was on a trade visit to China along with prime minister Theresa May, when he attended the signing of the landmark deal between Chinese officials and representatives of the school. The agreement is that the college will open up a new campus in Chengdu, China, the school's sixth international opening in seven years. ... The state-of-the-art campus is due to open in 2019 and will eventually, together with the College’s existing campus in Chengdu, which opened in 2015, provide education for more than 1,000 children between the ages of 3 and 18."
The subject is borderline notable. I am supporting a merge under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Local units of larger organizations owing to the borderline notability. 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) 08:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Malvern College#Overseas campuses as per Cunard's proposal. The Worcester news article is enough for WP:V, China Daily probably more like regurgitated press release. Oblivy (talk) 05:39, 9 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. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lestz

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

There does not appear to be significant independent coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing:

Guardian article isn't significant coverage
Southern Illinoisian article is *about* a partnership that's not independent (he gave them the books about him to read), but the article itself is indepdent, reliable, and significant
The "Steer Your Business Magazine" article seems very likely non-independent
MoneyMarketing doesn't really cover *him*
BusinessInsider is mostly him saying "I got rich by saving", may or may not be significant coverage, definitely independent
OutsourcingAngel is non-reliable
HillSong is just an event invite + non-independent
His autobiography & other book are non-independent

I am also unable to find any other sources, other than what is already in the article, on a quick look. His claims to fame seem to be (a) being a millionaire who was once homeless and (b) owning Genistar. But the S.Ill. + Bus.Insider don't really make enough coverage for (a), and (b) would be better in its own article. Therefore, Delete, lacking any sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thebiguglyalien's comments. Fails WP: General notability guidelines and there's no significant coverage on this author since he wasn't involved in any major events. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per nomination and other comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:37, 5 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 Germany–Moldova relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Chișinău

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article is merely a 1 line sentence which confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --92.77.57.69 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there a possible Redirect or Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Germany–Moldova relations: I couldn't find any enough sources on Google News, many of whom are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if anyone find something ping me. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Germany-Moldova relations: Most of the time embassies by themselves are not notable per WP:N, but can be merged with the aforementioned article, which is notable and can contribute to the article. Hlsci (talk) 11:39, 2 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!} 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear craze

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

Concerns about WP:GNG as raised earlier on the talk page by another user. In short, the article has unclear and indefinite inclusion criteria that's not backed up by secondary coverage. An example of this is the false equivalence of 'clear' beverages and transparent consumer electronics, which seem to be very distinct trends unified only by implication in this article. The article reads like a list of random clear products rather than articulating what made the trend a "craze". Just not enough evidence at present to substantiate notability in my opinion. If this is deemed notable, suggest a rewrite of the article focusing on (a) the substance and use of the term, and (b) being more rigorous about what about products from that era make it attributable to the trend, backed by sources. Welcome any thoughts - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m old enough to remember the phenomenon of many products being marketed as clear. Was it a fad? Maybe. Was it a craze? Hardly. If this is kept or searched, try Clear fad. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any chance that the nominator would reduce this essay into a concise nomination statement? I don't think many editors will read all of this with the care required to come to a thoughtful decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry about that. Was a bit manic. I've simplified the nomination. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ＶＲＸＣＥＳ. It was all useful information but the bottleneck here at AFDs is participation and a large body of text like that generally has editors just moving on to the next AFD rather than taking the time to process all of that information. So, it was a strategic suggestion, not a content-based one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here don't do very much to support the idea of a "clear craze", a name that appears to come from a single usage in this Newsweek article. Newsweek aside, most of these are discussing individual clear products outside the context of a unifying trend. I don't think the sources analyze this trend enough that we can be linking products made for prisons, clear sodas, and translucent consumer electronics without veering into original research. hinnk (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after thinking about this a few days, I agree that it should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rahm (scientist)

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

The article doesn't show notability. fails GNG. ANTCrowd439 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and United States of America. ANTCrowd439 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only RS source I find talking about her is from CBS42 Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her bestseller is self-published, and I cannot find any significant reviews that verify the claim that it is a best seller. Fails notability as an academic and author, and some of the claims are peacock. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article doesn't include any reliable secondary sources. Four of the references are for International Science Nutrition Society, of which the subject is the founder. Potential RS sources I found include an article from May 5, 2024 about one of her books in the Idaho Statesman (via Newspapers.com - also published in other newspapers around the country) and a passing mention for sponsoring a documentary that won award at NYC film festival. There may be potential for an article but for now does not pass WP:GNG. Also needs to be written in WP:NPOV. Nnev66 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Idaho Statesman article I mentioned above is about the subject's book Be Your Own Inspiration in the Cure the Causes series and is written by an author from BookTrib.com, which appears to be a site that helps promote books so that source wouldn't count towards notability. Nnev66 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Please see that there are zero reliable sources about this person, and thus rates a very rare speedy from me. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 6 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!} 05:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kuhn

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

BLP created in 2008 with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet any sports notability criteria. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any sources on Google News even google showing a different guy. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He played over 15 years ago. Google News isn't really the place to look. It only shows recent stuff. Links go dead on the internet quicker than that. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 13:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search on newspapers.com didn't reveal anything more than some brief mentions in game recaps, with nothing that could be used to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 2 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!} 05:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Talaat

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

As far as I can tell, this is a minor actor and has not had any significant roles Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i agree, i;m the creator of the page and i think now the person doesn't meat WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG.--Eng-Bavly (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, @Eng-Bavly: if significant roles comes in the future with reliable sources then it can be freshly recreated. Xegma(talk) 13:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it sounds good. Eng-Bavly (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Based on what it is seen from the article so far his article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79lives (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 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.

One day I'll learn what a "novelty distro" is. It wasn't linked in this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyarch Linux

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

This lacks WP:SIGCOV and the only sources talking about is on the article itself the ZDnet which is release on 2024 making it unreliable per WP:PRS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "PRS"? Really? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd say the Japanese source should be reliable, as it's not owned but only licensed by Red Ventures, but that's just one source. Would love to see notability established for a listicle of all the novelty distros someday. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRS said thatZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner.. So it is considered as unreliable. Also, yeah I wish it shows nobility someday. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as it's not owned but only licensed by Red Ventures Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 3 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 FC Concordia Basel. We generally don't Redirect player's articles to team pages as players can change teams but I see support here for this ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Chol-ryong

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:SIGCOV, only found a source from 2008 from France 24 Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Miminity and GiantSnowman: I am slightly confused by your straight up delete arguments. There is clearly some noted history here, along with the France24 news and swissinfo.ch clearly saysSwiss second-division side Concordia Basel has signed up the first two North Korean football players ever to be hired by a European club. I would strongly suggest that we should redirect to FC Concordia Basel, I am also disappointed this was not a redirect either, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Kuk-jin. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The Swiss second division is not even a pro league. Simione001 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never even mentioned the league, I mentioned the club they played for. I am unsure about [14], is that a mirror of an article? Or it's own article? There is some WP:SUSTAINED with this article [15]. However I did have a good look and I felt maybe a redirect to the Swiss club is a good alt to deletion. I still feel there is some meat on the bone for an article. I wouldn't mind a keep here. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is fine. Giant Snowman 17:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Swiss team. I looked for articles in Korean and could only find passing mentions of him, mostly about some plays he made during the football games that were part of the South-North Workers' Unification Conference for the Implementation of the June 15th [ko]. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:46, 7 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!} 03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kye Song-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:57, 2 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 G11 (non admin close)🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 08:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarem k khazaei

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

Falls WP:GNG The draft is Draft:Sarem K Khazaei. Youtube and Google not Reliable 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 04:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 04:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This article is a blatant copy of the draft which it got rejected. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 2 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 KDVR. as an ATD. Content remains if any editor wants to Merge content later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K13AV-D

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KDVR. No sources, BUT the KDVR simulcast at least brings in the possibility of a merger into their relay list. Maybe even a mini section. --Danubeball (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDVR, the only notable broadcast station it rebroadcasts. If a second station had been inserted on this mux, my recommendation would have been to delete as no suitable single redirect target exists (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 23#K15MH-D). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:41, 4 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 Doug Quick. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – includes references and suitable information, needs to settle down rather than have instant dismissal. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for the museum. Each of the sources is about its founder Doug Quick, with (at most) a glancing mention of the fact that he founded this organization. The closest we get is this local radio story, but even that is mostly about Quick with just a couple WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the museum. I'd suggest a redirect to Doug Quick but that page already redirects here. If someone wants to create that page so I can change my !vote, please ping me but otherwise I'm left with "delete." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on converting the Doug Quick page to his bio and make a museum section and then merge this with the new Doug Quick Page, if you think this would work. BuffaloBob (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Doug Quick article with a redirect of Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum to a section in this would seem to be a possible solution. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on your recommendation and will be posting the “new” Doug Quick article shortly, then I will return here to request your consensus. BuffaloBob (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs lotsa clean up, but meets WP:GNG per Jonathan Bowen's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP What are the references that you and @Jpbowen think provide WP:SIGCOV? They are all the definition of “trivial mention.” Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of original ideas but no consensus. If you are arguing Keep, you should respond to the nominator's statement about the lack of sources about the museum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dclemens1971. Fails WP:NORG. SBKSPP, why did you vote "Keep, meets GNG per Jonathan Bowen's argument", when Jonathan Bowen did not mention GNG once in their comment? Please provide some sources that offer significant coverage if you're going to vote to keep. C F A 💬 03:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to the new Doug Quick bio article as suggested by @Dclemens1971 and endorsed by @Jpbowen. I am the creator of both of these articles and I agree to the redirect proposal.BuffaloBob (talk)
- Technical note, BuffaloBob -- if you support a redirect, please indicate that by changing your bolded !vote accordingly. A "keep" !vote supports keeping the article as is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to newly created Doug Quick as AtD, as that's the subject for which the sources in this article provide WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doug Quick. I change my mind. There's more coverage for the person than the online museum itself. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 7 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. This was a closure that suprised me and shows how much the discussion can change after a relisting. Thanks to the editors who spent time tracking down new sources. While AFD is not clean up, if we end up with a better referenced article, then this process was probably worth it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

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

Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. CptViraj (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - First, there are several websites with text almost identical to this article, but I can't tell whether the WP article is WP:COPYVIO or a case of citogenesis: (1), (2), (3).

The article needs to be revised to resolve the possible copyvio problem.

Second, there are sources that could be used in an overhaul effort for this article:

Third, there are multiple listings by college, annually, naming scholarship awardees at the various institutions, with descriptions of the award, which colud provide in depth, reliable sources to revise the article.

Last, perhaps the best solution to the problem of potential copyvio might be to draftify this article, and rebuild it from secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio is unlikely. Looking through the article's history, the current version developed slowly over time. Here is the copyvio comparison for your link no. 1. It's blatantly obvious (and also kinda funny) that they just copied text from Wikipedia and made some minor changes to disguise it ("29" -> "various", "selected" -> "chosen", "on the basis of" -> "based on"). The comparison tool doesn't work for the other two links, but they're dated so we can look at the latest revision before they were published. For both no. 2 and no. 3, the text was already there. So the copyright concerns are baseless and the article should definitely not be draftified. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources flagged here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a list of potential sources here, though it seems they are all from universities involved with the programme. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy.~~ I looked for sources and all I could find were press releases and content promoting the scholars on the websites of their colleges and universities; none of these are independent coverage. It's a WP:GNG fail, but as an AtD we can redirect to the discussion of the founding donor's philanthropy in his bio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection given the other sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Siebel or Improve. There are pages about the scholars at the websites of colleges and universities, and contrary to comments above I do consider these as RS. There is a burden on universities to be honest, so if something is published then they consider it at least slightly notable. That so many have relevant press releases says a lot. I will oppose a redirect as the section Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy does not cover this largish program. Improve is my preference, I think the editor missed what is needed for notability, and maybe nobody helped. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press releases and official publications of universities of scholarship awardees cannot be considered "independent". Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that statement. If universities publish misinformation on their webpages there are serious consequences. Hence what they publish is much, much more rigorously curated than many newspapers. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is reliable. But it is not independent. The question is not whether what they write is true, it is why they publish it. However a books search shows mention of Siebel Scholars in multiple books. Some are primary sources, yet the mention of Siebel Scholars in, e.g., [16] amounts to secondary information in a primary source. Some are just passing [17] and some are not independent [18] but I think it would be worth looking at those a little more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reliable, in-depth sources on newspapers.com and ProQuest, and added content that is evidence of GNG. (Note: to access the ProQuest sources, first login to Wikimedia Commons, then login to Wikipeia Library, then scroll down and open the ProQuest link. Finally, click on the ProQuest ID link in each citation.) The article's sections, "Participating Schools", and the "Conference Topics & Speakers" are still completely un-referenced, and should probably be deleted or references provided. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grand'mere Eugene makes a strong WP:HEY case, having expanded the page from a good number of newspaper sources. There is a question sometimes about the extent that a newspaper article is a primary source, if it merely reports in a local paper that a student has received the award, but the coverage goes beyond this. In addition there are book sources. I state above [19] is a primary source, but the section about the Siebel Scholars is secondary information in that primary source. The Meth project link also gets discussed in [20] although that is not in depth. This one [21] talks about an extension of the prgram into biomedical engineering. There are many that reference funding. My reading is still not exhaustive of these, but I think that this has sufficient penetration and sufficient sourcing to cross the bar. Thanks, also, to Grand'mere Eugene for improving the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (previous !vote struck above); article still needs cleanup but sources found and added bring it over the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:03, 3 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!} 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Islamic Cultural Center

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

No claim to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching in the Korean language I can find this Jeju Ilbo article: [22], but it's only a one-sentence mention. Can't find much else. seefooddiet (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant media coverage or resources --Loewstisch (talk) 10:57, 2 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 that there are adequate sources that help establish GNG. Thank you for putting together the source assessment table. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Rizivi

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- WP:NFILM is looking for Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
Note also: most sources refer to her as Jia Wertz, but her own web page uses Rizvi. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And bizarre system of reference names too: "one" etc. Have fixed the most-re-used. PamD 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She doesn’t seem to pass WP:NDIRECTOR but the Calgary Herald and GlobalNews profiles are sufficient SIGCOV for this to clear WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd welcome more participation here and review of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Awards section needs sources. Xegma(talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone else find it odd that someone with no other edits uploaded her photo and arranged for copyright permission to be emailed a few days before another editor began writing this article? Reviewing sources, nothing seems secondary or significant. jwtmsqeh (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still stand by my week keep with at least two sources (and possibly more) constituting WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Did a quick source assessment table:

Furthermore, the "delete" !votes are not engaging at all with the sources presented or all the potential guidelines of notability. We're not here to determine whether the article was created by a conflicted editor (I bet it was, but that doesn't matter as other editors are fixing it). The quality of film festivals she's gotten into doesn't have bearing on whether WP:GNG is met. I agree that she doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR, but the sourcing is clear that she does pass GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an interview with her counts fwiw, but all three are about Conviction more than her. If anything, I think an article about the documentary would be better than an article about her per Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event. jwtmsqeh (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I can see, most of the reliable sources covered her for her efforts in the justice system and the filmmaking is just part of that effort and hard to say it is just single event. Instant History (talk) 06:46, 6 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!} 02:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Gwang-sok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:57, 2 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. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkarim Fardan

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks to have some potential, as a capped player and four-time league champion. Will need a thorough search in Arabic. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now, it needs more sources. Xegma(talk) 14:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Hicks

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and simply being a knight is hardly sufficient for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not encyclopedic content. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. If anything, speedy delete for no credible claim of significance. C F A 💬 02:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I encourage everyone to check this forum post Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even if every thing is true, the coverage is sparse to the point that one source even questions his very existence. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 6 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 Alef Aeronautics. ✗plicit 00:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dukhovny

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

Biography of a CEO of a company, Alef Aeronautics, which is developing a 'flying car'. The article fails to demonstrate that Dukhovny himself, rather than the company and its proposed project, is notable by Wikipedia criteria. The sourcing (some of which looks questionable) consists entirely of articles discussing the project, and of interviews with Dukhovny - interviews are of course not independent of the subject, and thus cannot be used to demonstrate notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Aviation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Ukraine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alef Aeronautics: since that is what he is known for. Fails WP:NBASIC. Interviews do not count towards notability. All other coverage focuses on the company and only offers trivial mentions of Dukhovny. C F A 💬 02:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NBASIC multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Jim Dukhovny has been featured in major outlets such as CNN, CNBC, Reuters, Fox Business, ABC for his role in creating the prototype of the flying car.Jacob0790 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews cannot be used to demonstrate notability. We need evidence of in-depth coverage independent of Dukhovny himself, and not of the Alef project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not for Jim Dukhovny, the Alef project would not exist—it's that simple. Just as Tesla is inseparable from Musk and Telegram from Durov. If Alef Aeronautics is notable, then Dukhovny is notable as well. Please note that this article is a stub, and the community is welcome to contribute to its improvement. Jacob0790 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstanding of Wikipedia notability criteria duly noted (see WP:NOTINHERITED). As is your absurd attempt to argue around it by analogy. Tesla (with Musk's help, or perhaps despite it) makes cars, by the million. Alef makes promises. And publicity. If and when they actually get a 'flying car' on the market in significant numbers, maybe sources will write enough about Dukhovny to justify an article. Meanwhile, per Wikipedia policy, we don't write about people just because they talk a lot about themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is where people talk about themselves. The fact that major news outlets have covered Dukhovny and his work shows that his activities have already attracted significant public and media attention. Jacob0790 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you think you are going to achieve by repeating yourself. A biography of Dukhovny, like any other, needs in-depth independent sourcing. Not just to demonstrate notability, but to enable us to actually write anything of consequence about him. It doesn't exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. As co-founder of a notable company, all his notability, if any, is tied to it. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 6 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.