Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Pung-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any sources showing notability.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:27, 30 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 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Myong-gil

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North_Korea

Lâm (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides, but after three weeks, still no consensus. Considering the current size of the article, a merge proposal (to Hobnob_biscuit#History?) on the article's Talk page may be the best way forward. Owen× ☎ 12:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Crunch

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

It's a biscuit. Cookie for our US readers. References are no use for WP:V, fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE reveals nothing useful 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless WP:Library convinces upcoming participants otherwise, redirect to McVitie's § Biscuits. First paragraph's a slogan; the rest are mere media mentions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability, as it does not cite significant independent sources that demonstrate the biscuit's enduring cultural or historical significance --Loewstisch (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a long defunct biscuit brand. Historically significiant, and unsurprisingly hard to find in-depth coverage. This is still useful uncontroversial content, and is of no commerical benefit to any company. Perhaps a case of WP:IAR. Edwardx (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NBISCUIT does not appear to exist - however I agree with the above this is no longer a commercial product, and there is sufficient cited sources now in the article to demonstrate a level of cultural impact and give sufficient sourcing to sustain an article, including recipes from secondary sources. ResonantDis_tortion 09:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hobnob biscuit? I don't really see any reason why not. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the Daily Gazette article is nothing if not in depth, The guardian article is more in passing, but shows there is collector interest in them, as do a few other articles google threw up, and Moab is My Washpot quote shows that they are notable enough to be used as a kind of cultural shorthand in a literary setting.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Gazette article is in-depth- but in depth about the Colchester Priory Biscuit. It tells us that "“It is believed that this original recipe morphed into the Abbey Crunch - a McVities biscuit referred to as ‘the original oat biscuit’.", “This in turn morphed into the famous and much-loved Hobnob.", and “The only real difference between Abbey Crunch, the Hobnob and the Colchester Priory Biscuit is the inclusion of more sweetness via golden syrup." And, by "it tells us", I mean, "it quotes food festival organizer Don Quinn". That's not in-depth. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hobnob biscuit#History. Current refs are either passing mentions ([1][2][3][4]), fan-made recipes for the biscuit ([5][6][7]), or from nicecupofteaandasitdown.com ([8]), which appears to be a self-published blog by "Wifey and Nicey". Can't access the book sources, but if they're only supporting one sentence about the packaging, I fail to see how they provide any WP:SIGCOV of the treat itself either. But the trivial mentions in [9] and [10] prove to us that this biscuit existed, that historians tie it to the Hobnob, and that they were "packed into a PET tray created by blow moulding and protected from moisture with a Rayophane MXXT film wrapping"? That's enough for a merge. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors voting for keep are highly encouraged to work out a split for this article so it doesn't come back for AfD a fourth time. asilvering (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle

AfDs for this article:

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

Monstrously huge and growing unmaintainable fancruft list where most of the tracks do not pass WP:NMUSIC. This is a piece for Schott's Miscellany. Still fails WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has already survived two attempted AfDs easily, and neither of those had a single vote to delete. The nominator this time was also the nominator of the second AfD, and this latest nomination has no acknowledgement of any of the successful arguments made by "Keep" voters previously. The second AfD did have some discussion of how the article is tough to maintain due to the singer's enormously prolific career, and perhaps splitting into multiple articles (perhaps by decade) could be considered. Otherwise this nomination is merely an attempt to pretend that the idea didn't already fail twice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not possible to handle this list. Fails WP:NLIST. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion given the large participation on the 2nd nomination and the lack of participation here. Also, given two previous AFDs, this discusion is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article clearly passes NLIST. This is neither WP:FANCRUFT, nor some indiscriminate collection of information, as the information in list is factual list of songs that were recorded. Asha Bhosale has been included in the Guinness book of world records for that source. As someone mentioned in the previous AFD not having this list will be stupid. If you folks personally can't handle it, then post about it on relevant wikiprojects, and stop working on the article. When the article "list of missing persons" got big, it was not deleted, it was split in decades — something which had been suggested to you already. Kindly stop nominating same notable article again-and-again. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but improve). I already commented above but will formally vote here, because no viable argument has ever been made to delete this article. Two previous AfDs passed with flying colors with all votes to keep in compliance with policy, which the current nominator ignored. The one delete vote here, on how to "handle" the article, is invalid per several sub-policies at WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Granted, the article is indeed unwieldy, and like the above voter I recommend splitting it up into several new articles by decade. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the nominator's response to those editors arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a solid an unexceptional example of a list. It’s super long, but the decade / year links on the side make it super easy to navigate. Could it be improved with more links to the most important songs / more citations for individual songs or films? Yes, but the criteria is “are there sources in the world?” not “is the article as written currently fully sourced, and you have to assume those sources exist given the singers fame, longevity, and record breaking. Also… I know we are meant to ignore previous AfD discussions, but the last two have also been overwhelming for keep, and well discussed / argued. If nothing in the article has changed, seems strange to just keep doing it?

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Maharashtra. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (and split?) I think the article meets NLIST. The maintenance rationale is invalid, in my view. We can't delete an article because it is not being maintained, and I think we could solve the maintenance issue, in this case, by splitting the article as was discussed in second deletion nomination. Ratekreel (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now Winter 2006 (Australian series)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage. Folkezoft (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Folkezoft (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nom states that it does not meet NALBUM but a quick look at the article shows it went platinum so meets #3. Nomination is based on a false claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can’t believe I’m saying this, because the NOW compilations are such schlock… but. Accredited platinum album by the ARIA (who certify that stuff for Australia), so it seems to pass.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. Consensus is trending towards merging these by-position lists to a single comprehensive one, perhaps with fewer listed per position, as a viable ATD. I am also closing the other nominated by-position lists similarly. Editors are welcome to BOLDly merge the lists mentioned here but not currently nominated, or start a discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references largely consist of primary/non-independent sources and stats databases, but more importantly, they also all fail verification or only cover off-topic matters; none actually discuss this record or list. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A thorough WP:BEFORE search yielded dismal results; the best-quality source I could find was this Guinness World record page, but the WP:RSP entry for Guinness World Records says

There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Furthermore, it briefly mentions the first-place entry but fails to discuss a group or set of list entries together as required by WP:NLIST. Page 329 of this book offers a sentence discussing the top four entries of this list but since it's published by AuthorHouse, it's an WP:SPS. With all that said, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What EXISTING article do you suggest this article be Merged to? If one doesn't exist, this article will likely be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Left guide: I'm not !voting here because the nom is out of balance in my opinion. Would you consider bundling all of these:
If all of these were nominated for deletion or merger into a new List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders article, I would support that. As it is, to only nom catcher, pitcher and outfielder is a no-go for me. Pasting this comment on the catcher, pitcher and outfielder AFDs. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Liz (an experienced regular AfD admin) says in one of those AfDs, we're past the point of no return in withdrawing or bundling these even if we wanted to, since there are extant non-keep !votes from other community members in basically all of these. I actually plan to nominate the remaining "double plays by position" articles sometime soon, but it takes precious time to do a thorough good-faith WP:BEFORE search for each individual article to see if there's anything encyclopedically salvageable, and other commitments both on Wikipedia and in real life means the research can't always be easily done all at once. In any case, each nomination should be treated on its own merits. Left guide (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BX, @Reywas92, @Cbl62, if you support a merge, please create the target! We can't merge to an article that doesn't exist. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a main article to which all of the pending positional lists can be combined. See List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. I have reduced to 25 per position for now, but if folks think it should be limited to 10 per position, that can be discussed at the talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jere Klein

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

Non-notable Chilean musician. WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cabrils (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per mom: far too soon. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Massive coverage in Chilean sources demonstrate notability. Bedivere (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am seeing plenty of coverage from independent reliable sources in Chilean and, more broadly, South American media, which is not addressed by the nominator. Aside from coverage, he has earned hundreds of millions of streams, collaborated with notable international artists, and won awards for his achievements. JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added an update to the article from Billboard that notes his presence on the Billboard Global 200 list. This musician has been on the Billboard charts for Chile for a while now. Also made an appearance on Monitor Latino here but I can't figure out how to navigate their charts without an account. Recon rabbit 19:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Disagreement here whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. Which sources provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think the references do meet WP:MUSICBIO at this point, but not by much. The Premios Musa [es] award isn't enough to indicate notability. Many of the sources aren't very in depth—Billboard is basically one sentence, there are some awards listings that doesn't actually cover him at all, Publimetro y The Clinic [es] are about a fight and an arrest. I do think there's enough to meet the notability guideline though, with the profiles in La Tercera, El Mercurio, and Radioactiva [es] being the better sources. hinnk (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and or WP:BASIC. I do not think this falls under WP:TOOSOON per the sustained coverage. Piscili (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arete Kerge

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

Most of the article is cited to the subject's own website. Not clear if the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking WP:SIGCOV, I find zero News sources. I did a couple of searches and found no additional reliable sources. She might be talented, but she’s not getting any attention. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per https://www.emic.ee/?sisu=interpreedid&mid=33&id=233&lang=est&action=view&method=biograafia as a serious source--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see how this is a candidate for a Speedy Keep when two participants are arguing for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. She has detailed biographies at the Eesti Muusika Infokeskus and Estonian Interpretide Liit. Covered in Sirp, Õhtuleht , Postimees , Kroonika , Vaba Eesti Sõna , Estonian World Review & MuusikaElu. Very clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV (no idea about the claim above of "not getting any attention"), as well as WP:NMUSIC. ExRat (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- keep while some of the sources above are primary sources, or interviews, and some of the others are double ups, there are at least three independent sources with decent coverage. It’s the media coverage of her wedding that pushed it over the top for me, you don’t get that without being notable. The primary sources show evidence of major awards too, which, while they aren’t usable as notable coverage, DO seem to prove she hits notability standards for WP:NMUSIC
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:26, 30 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 Wiesmoor#History. asilvering (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Germany mid-air collision

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

Per WP:GNG, barely notabile incident, nearly zero sources can be found about it, even in german. SignorPignolini 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am shocked that this even got through, run of the mill incident with zero continued coverage. Lolzer3k 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wiesmoor#History – Coverage of the event does exist, such as [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] (and mentioned in a book [18]) but most of them are either from 1989 or are passing mentions, with additionally, the final report also available [19]. This german forum from 2005-2006 has uncovered some very good coverage of the event [20], however I've been unable to find the said sources online. With that being said, there isn't much sustained coverage post-1989 nor in-depth coverage of the event that would make it warrant a stand-alone article, whilst a merge could probably provide a slightly more historical context of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Aviationwikiflight as a reasonable alternative to deletion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z). Rough consensus for this AtD. asilvering (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Peak

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

Non-notable 9/11 victim's memorial page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fails WP:BLP1E. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as article creator) per WP:REDIRECT. While the article probably fails BLP1E, which I take full responsibility for, a redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z) is better than nothing, where information on the subject still does exist. SirMemeGod  12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a non-notable individual, routine office work. Wiki is not a memorial and this person isn't more or less notable than the hundreds of others that passed away that day. There is no coverage about this person to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I have no problem keeping this. As for the oft-quoted policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial ... we sure seem to bend the other direction at times: List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo and List of Alamo defenders, etc. etc. Most of the people on those lists are only notable for that one battle. Wikipedia is often a memorial of one subject matter or another. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. Is your argument that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? We can point to lots of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it doesn't override policy. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::It wasn't an argument - I'm OK keeping this as is, per Sir MemeGod above. No opinion of whether or not to redirect it. The rest of my comment was just a general passing comment that Wikipedia sometimes varies in how things are applied, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused here. SirMemeGod wants to redirect the article and admits it fails BLP1E. There is no "Keep per Sir Memegod" because the argument is one that argues for redirecting. Could you clarify your position a bit? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sir MemeGod @Acebulf@Muboshgu Do you guys mean WP:BIO1E? She died in 2001, so I've having a really hard time seeing how WP:BLP1E applies. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm assuming they meant BIO1E, at least that's what I meant. ~~Why do we need so many abbreviations?~~ SirMemeGod  22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, derp. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z), with a possible select merger. While very sad, I don’t see significant coverage outside of her birthplace newspaper. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This can probably be closed, as everyone is in agreement that the article should either be redirected or deleted, and the main and pretty much only significant contributor to the article is also in agreement. SirMemeGod  12:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect are two very different closures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bearian, with some of the information from this stand-alone article going into that composite victims article page. There is not enough for a stand-alone article on this victim, but the content would be appropriate along with other victims in a joint article. It would require some rewording however to make sure it is NPOV. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Softball. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, there are no sources with significant coverage. Couldn't think of an appropriate redirect target. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see any independent coverage to pass WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Czech Republic. Let'srun (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Long-time stub that is poorly-sourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The team is covered on softball.cz, but I believe this is not enough to pass GNG. WP:NORG mentioned in nom does not apply, not an organization or product. FromCzech (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please bring over any reliable sources from the Indonesian article and work on improving our version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puput Novel

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

Lack of notability Sxg169 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are enough sources out three to show notability. Im working on more sources. Besides, she is on one other language, which says to me that she is notable. Jeanette Coca Cola girl Martin (salut?) 06:38, 10 September, 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and improve with sources from the Indonesian WP article, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Politicians. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Notable in Indonesia, with sources and well-developed article in id.wikipedia. Svartner (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some confirmation that the sources in the Indonesian article meet en-wiki's notability standards?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Easily meets WP:BIO. Any Indonesian who grew up in the '90s will definitely know her. There are plenty of sources available online as well, although the article itself does need improvement. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sourcing passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covet Fashion

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VICE is major significant coverage, and I found additional SIGCOV here in this physical book, but Venture Beat seems more like an interview/primary source. I am not seeing GNG being passed here. If others discover more, I am willing to change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was able to find this article from Fortune, but it requires a subscription to read so I'm unable to assess if it's significant coverage or not. I also found another interview from Venture Beat and short coverage from Bleeding Cool about a New York Fashion Week update - I don't think these really demonstrate notability but they may be useful for a 'development' section if article is kept. Waxworker (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage in Fortune appears to be an article solely on the topic. The Vice article is clearly above the WP:N bar. The Bleeding Cool one is probably above the bar for "significant". That's 2 or 3 sources, all of which are solely focused on the topic. The other sources have decent information, but appear to be press releases or otherwise primary. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little significant coverage comfortably independent of the subject. The Fortune, VentureBeat and Vice articles provide significant coverage, but are interspersed closely with interviews and many read like profiles of the business achievements of their creator. The Fortune article reveals itself to be part of a "daily newsletter on the world’s most powerful women", and as you read you get the sense that all its information comes from the developer as the source, which flatters her immensely: "Like any good marketer, Ethington knows her product intimately". Gita Jackson of Vice recounts herself attending a Fashion Week event held by Covet and: surprise! Both she and Covet seem very keen to name drop sponsor fashion brand Badgley Mischka front and centre, as Fuchs says: "“I think Covet provides an opportunity for people to experience Badgley Mischka that wouldn’t otherwise have that opportunity". The other articles, like Bleeding Cool and Disney News, are ephemera around game updates. Needs something a little more evaluative and removed from the creators to suggest it's not held up by puff pieces. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree that the coverage in those three sources is significant. Those sources are occasionally fawning but their coverage of the game is solidly over the bar AND found in mainstream media, something unusual for an app. We can add in things like [21] and lots of things like [22] (not in depth, but certainly showing the raw breadth of coverage). Hobit (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources identified from Waxworker and even Zxcvbnm should be more than enough to pass GNG. They're clearly in-depth, relevant and provide more than enough info to expand this article. Also, I mostly disagree with the assertion that the sources are of dubious independence. While some of them do contain various statements and information from the creators themselves, they're also interspersed with plenty of secondary coverage akin to actual journalism.

I think a pretty common misconception is that a source that uses primary info is inherently primary or non-independent in nature. Secondary sources are allowed to use these types of sources from a topic occasionally. What makes them truly secondary is the commentary and analysis of said sources, and I believe there's enough of both from the Fortune and Vice pieces to circumvent any concerns regarding their independence. Both sources clearly contextualize the game with the fashion industry while offering background info on the game's creation and creators. The Fortune piece may touch a bit more on the creator than the game, but it reveals pertinent and factual statements regarding its gameplay, style and freemium payment model, which is the type of encyclopedic coverage one would expect for any game.

Also, Gita Jackson is a fairly reputable gaming journalist. Though journalists can sometimes be influenced by the people and topics they cover, this article seems like a long-form piece of investigative journalism. She doesn't shy away from explaining the game in relation to negative aspects of the fashion industry: "I think that Covet is fun, but I don't know if it's good for me. My relationship to the fashion industry is complicated in that I love beautiful clothes but am both lazy and tend towards cynicism... an industry that has driven women to eating disorders... relies on sweatshops to create their garments... historically racist on the runway..." Another common misconception is that an article has to be overly negative or critical about a company or product in order to count towards NCORP. There's a difference between offering praise to a topic or person and glazing over them like a puff-piece does, and while I can see how one would assume the latter here, I think stuff like this proves that it walks towards the former side of the runway.

I've also yet to find evidence that the game's creators influenced these two publications such that they could cover the game in a fashionable light, akin to a truly non-independent source. It seems that there was editorial oversight that ensured the writers here had no vested interest in the game, its creators or the company itself.

Finally, if editors are still unconvinced, maybe a search on Google Scholar should be enough to prove it - like this solid scholarly source (may also need TWL to access). PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources per Waxworker and Hobit seem more than sufficient, but the scholarly source PantheonRadience found puts it WELL over the top, with extended scholarly attention to the game (I have access to full text via University, so could check). More than meets WP:GNG

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:00, 30 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 23:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Watson (entrepreneur)

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

No more than an advert for Ohme. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources 2 and 3 are RS... more about the company than the person. I"m not sure the company is notable though... Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to redirect to the company, but there isn't enough coverage about them [23] and [24] are typical. I suppose the two Irish Times articles could be used for an article about the company, but one's mostly this person talking about things with a bit on the company... We aren't debating an article on the company; delete the entrepreneur's article due to a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Environment, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Spleodrach (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ilizarov apparatus without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Octopod External Fixator

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

Not a notable product by itself, merely an example of what is used for Ilizarov apparatus, and could just be mentioned there rather than having an article that reads like an advertisement. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ilizarov apparatus Even though the article could potentially be beefed up, the topic makes no sense to be outside of its parent topic, where the use is. WP:N statesThis is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. And WP:MERGE statesReasons for merging ... Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Box Elder County Baby Jane Doe (1948)

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

Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and does not meet the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forensics/missing persons database. Nominating this alongside Davis County John Doe (2023) and Weber County John Doe (1987) for the exact same reason; these three articles all meet the exact same characteristics, which is that the information is obtained solely from the UCBI and NamUs, both of which represent surface-level descriptions and don't indicate any level of notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's one hit in Google, seems to be a wiki mirror. I don't see notability, virtually zero coverage outside of database listings. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Can't find sources that demonstrate its eligibility for entry into this encyclopedia. Piscili (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried different search terms in ProQuest case there was a huge story about a baby's remains being found in Utah in 1948. Didn't turn up anything, but even if there were, it's hard to imagine that it would justify the framing of this article with all of its forensic detail. Just like we don't create Wikipedia articles for every person who ever lived, we also don't create Wikipedia articles for every set of human remains ever found. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheTechnician27, this AFD is not formatted correctly to be considered a bundled nomination so this discussion just concerns the main article in the page title. You can't just name the articles in your deletion nomination for them to be included. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD for nominating multiple articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. Normally I would have done that, but under these circumstances where the subjects are distinct (separated by four decades each), I felt a multi-nom might not be appropriate. I linked to two other discussions because of the very similar constructions of their articles, believing it would make discussion more efficient, but they didn't feel sufficiently related subject-wise to formally bundle. I did know going into this that separate discussions would have to take place, although if an informal grouping of similar deletion discussions is discouraged, I will abide by that going forward. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davis County John Doe (2023)

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

Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and does not meet the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forensics/missing persons database. Nominating this alongside Weber County John Doe (1987) and Box Elder County Baby Jane Doe (1948) for the exact same reason; these three articles all meet the exact same characteristics, which is that the information is obtained solely from the UCBI and NamUs, both of which represent surface-level descriptions and don't indicate any level of notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Can't find sources that demonstrate its eligibility for entry into this encyclopedia. Piscili (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a forensics database. Searched ProQuest for "Davis County" "John Doe" 2023 and got 1 irrelevant hit. Fails WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was not able to find sources for this article, it might be of note later but it isn't notable now. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weber County John Doe (1987)

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

Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and does not meet the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forensics/missing persons database. Nominating this alongside Davis County John Doe (2023) and Box Elder County Baby Jane Doe (1948) for the exact same reason; these three articles all meet the exact same characteristics, which is that the information is obtained solely from the UCBI and NamUs, both of which represent surface-level descriptions and don't indicate any level of notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Can't find sources that demonstrate its eligibility for entry into this encyclopedia. Piscili (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the statement that Wikipedia is not a forensics database. Searched ProQuest for "Weber County" "John Doe" "1987" and got no results. Fails WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Showaddywaddy without prejudice against a zero-byte "merge". If the merge is not carried out within a month, any editor may WP:BLAR. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choise

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

Fails WP:BAND. I see little scope for notability of this sort lived band, but nit averse to draftification if it is a genuinely held belief that notability is present and just hiding somewhere. Merge into Showaddywaddy. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Showaddywaddy as they might be a search term for music historians. They had some local gigs and one unsuccessful release, and I can find no further information in reliable sources on anything else they may have achieved in their own right. They are already mentioned as one of the origins of Showaddywaddy at their article, so no merge is necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl math

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

Coverage is not sustained. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Mathematics, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is satisfied with multiple reliable sources covering, and Sustained with sources from both 2023 and 2024. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's also got some cultural traction when a local sports team created an ad that didn't quite "ht" as planned [25], and basic explanations of the phenomena [26], [27]. The phrase having cultural traction is a good indication of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And some journal articles for good measure [28], [29]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's also been covered in European/French media [30] [31], [32]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed above and those in the article demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG. McYeee (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. Meme pages may seem a bit daft, but where they are notable they are notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage is continuing, so is sustained. While I have vast reservations about the meme itself at many levels, via WP:NPOV that is irrelevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown, Cowley

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

Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT due to no significant coverage. PROD was objected to because of GEOFEAT, but, quote from that guideline (emphasis mine):

"Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

Historic England is the only place I've been able to find any info, but it's a very small amount, and in my opinion not enough to pass GNG or GEOFEAT. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is NOT what WP:GEOFEAT links to. The relevant policy wording is "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." The building is Grade II listed, so it passes WP:GEOFEAT. Edwardx (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I didn't see that part. But personally I still think in this case the lack of coverage supersedes ~~something which is~~ being presumed notable - we'll see what others say, I guess. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very definitely does satisfy WP:GEOFEAT as a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed buildings will have been researched to qualify, so they're references somewhere about them, even if not on line. Djflem (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SNVRK

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional article written to game Wikipedia, see Draft:SNVRKOTICS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to keep it completely nuetral? Could you explain what you think the issue is? AWGENIZATION (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, fails WP:MUSICBIO, and claims of charting are clearly fake. Nothing about him online apart from that single blog post cited, the rest is social media. Wikishovel (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the features are verifiable? Can you give advice on what sources can be added? The notability factor is present. AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the apparent fake charting claims you mentioned. AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just posted VNSNVRKY, a badly done hoax edit of Die Lit. All fake. Like this article. Wikishovel (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should we rewrite the article then? The album exists. It's not a hoax AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, SNVRK had ties to Carti's Opium label in the past. He is signed to AWGE. I didn't know you can't copy the same format. AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted most of the VNSNVRKY article until we can fix it AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one source link in VNSNVRKY that worked resolved to an article about Playboy Carti. The album is clearly a hoax; the artist is starting to look like one also, based on the faked sources. I've taken administrative action to delete the album's article and reserve my right to act administratively on the others. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more sources on all the pages AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources do resolve to somewhere; I can do enough verification to say this isn't an outright hoax. However, they appear to be to blogs and other sources that fall short of WP:RS. Further, as noted, the artist is not notable per the specific notability criteria for musicians. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the label page into SNVRK, do you think I just need better sources? AWGENIZATION (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added way more AWGENIZATION (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AWGENIZATION I just removed what you added because it failed verification. There was no mention of the label at the link you provided. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the main page ok now? AWGENIZATION (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to wait until we can get more coverage to get a page for SNVRKOTICS. The SNVRk page should be ok for now? AWGENIZATION (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here that supports a claim of notability, nor could I find anything in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing's charted, and he released a song 4 days ago? Literally zero coverage about this person, appears to be an attempt at PROMO. At least let the ink dry on the CD's before you give yourself a wiki article... Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has even less coverage than our Young Jimmy friend [33], who has very minimal coverage, but still a long way from notability for both. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe not a hoax but definitely exaggerated and self-promotional. He has a few songs on the typical self-upload and social media sites, but so do a billion other unknown rappers. This is an encyclopedia for those who have earned in-depth coverage, not a promotional site for amateurs who got started in their bedrooms yesterday. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! @Doomsdayer520, the "bedroom" was so so underrating! Hahaha! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoMowheelz

AfDs for this article:

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

Moved back to draftspace after previous discussion was closed as soft delete, hence why WP:CSD#G4 is not appropriate despite being moved back to articlespace by the article's creator with no substantive improvements. Zero coverage of this non-notable website; WP:GNG and/or WP:WEB not met. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, and Rajasthan. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero reliable independent coverage anywhere, fails WP:WEB. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched for sources that might bring this article back and couldn't find anything in English. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find coverage that met WEB or NCORP. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuickFIX

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

No indication this meets the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galicianist Common Space

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The sole reference is what the individual said in January 2024 when he said he was forming the party. Then this article was created Feb 10th They lost the election receiving 1,635 votes. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage, lost the election, tiny number of votes received. Only formed this year, so possibly TOSOON, but as of now… no. At MOST add to the List of political parties in Spain as a single bullet point with other non represented parties.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:10, 30 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. No justification from the nom for judging the cited sources as insufficient. Owen× ☎ 20:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin P. Adams Sr.

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

No indication of importance, does not pass WP:GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had obituaries in major newspapers like the Times. There’s plainly significant coverage. Bearian (talk)
Keep: the sources already cited in the article are pretty clearly enough to meet the GNG, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md Nahid Islam

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

No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE. Main claim to fame is that he was the youngest professional sports photographer. Articles was draftified yesterday from Md. Nahid Islam, sourced only with the dailycricket.com.bn sports blog post. Today it's been recreated with a second sports blog post from rabsportsnews.com, dated today, not a good sign of an independent source. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no coverage in reliable sources in English or Bengali (নাহিদ ইসলাম). Editors searching for any RS I missed please note that Nahid Islam is an unrelated activist. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Cricket, Football, and Bangladesh. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Just a journalist doing his job, with no established notability. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBIO. I could find no reliable sources to establish notability. Ratekreel (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: given it was re-created after draftification, title should be salted as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the subject’s lack of significant coverage about him, the page is very poorly written. It’s not even an article. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:21, 30 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 Dawood Hercules Corporation without prejudice against selective merge. Discarding the canvassed (COI? sock?) votes, and those not addressing the fundamental sourcing issue, I see a clear consensus not to keep this as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 20:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Samad Dawood

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Samad Dawood

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

Little has changed in his fortunes since the last AFD eight months ago. He's still a successful and civic-minded businessman from a prominent Pakistani business family, and has worked at a high level for some notable companies. But on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. I couldn't find SIGCOV of him in English or Urdu, just passing mentions in articles about the companies and organisations he's worked for, nothing to bring it up to the standard of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment: If only he had appeared in a few dramas, even in tiny roles, his BLP might have been easily saved from deletion under WP:NACTOR! But it’s ironic that someone so important in Pakistan's business community doesn’t have enough coverage that meets GNG. Anyway, I’ll hold off on voting for now. PS. No offense to the nominator Wikishovel, who also has legitimate reasons for taking it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not a slam dunk; outside of the Engro connection, there are no RS that discuss him and we only have source 13 that is helpful. Rest are yellow per Source Highlighter, so of moderate reliability. I still don't see/find much else we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article follows the guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as it demonstrates significant coverage in both Pakistani and international media, meeting WP:RS. As per WP:BASIC, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” Please feel free to check the sources, they meet all the mentioned criteria. Crosji (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reuters is RS.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters reference is indeed a reliable source, but that article is a summarised interview, and interviews are WP:Primary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable obscure business executive. Already deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samad Dawood. I suggest to WP:SALT the topic because Dawood family won't stop paying these UPEs. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This statement clearly violates WP:AFDEQ by making personal remarks about the subject. Given this user's anonymity, it could potentially be part of a coordinated attack, possibly even Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.
Crosji (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable at this time. The sources that are not not primary/self-published, Reuters, Financial Post, The News, can be considered trivial mentions at most, but not significant coverage about Dawood. These sources are a better proof of notability for the corporation, Engro, not for Dawood himself. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is WP:V and there exist WP:NEXIST 202.141.250.250 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)— 202.141.250.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dawood Hercules Corporation because he's prominent businessman serving on the board of various companies under Dawood Hercules Corporation. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The references for this article are strong, even for a stub. The subject is a notable businessman in Pakistan with occasional public appearances. His notability is supported by coverage from reputable national newspapers and some international outlets. The first deletion discussion, with only one vote for deletion, appeared premature. Hence the new article has been improved with additional sources. While contributions are welcome, the arguments for deletion are not in line with policy. -Crosji (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough of second !vote: in an WP:AFD discussion, we get to post our recommendation just once. You're welcome to comment as much as you like. Wikishovel (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: While there may not be extensive media coverage, the subject is undoubtedly an influential figure in Pakistan’s business community, as highlighted by Saqib and others above. The significance is evident through the inclusion in government advisory groups and recognized contributions. The cited sources, including interviews with reputable, independent global media, further reinforce the prominence. Instead of debating the subject’s notability, efforts would be better spent refining and improving the article.

202.141.250.250 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough of second !vote: in an WP:AFD discussion, we get to post our recommendation just once. You're welcome to comment as much as you like. Wikishovel (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are solid. The fact that there is coverage from independent national newspapers support notability.
119.155.63.175 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)— 119.155.63.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Closing admin should disregard some IP votes, as it appears that canvassing may be influencing the outcome. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still don't see a consensus (even after disregarding second "votes" that were cast). A source review could be helpful as well as arguments based in policy. Opinions, both pro and con, based on who he is related to, are not useful to an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dawood Hercules Corporation. I was in the process of closing as such, but as we edit conflicted will just leave this as a !vote. He does not merit a standalone, but the target makes sense. Protect if needed against disruptive recreation. Star Mississippi 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a source assessment, as suggested by Liz above in the relisting comment:

Wikishovel (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just added an additional source from Bloomberg.com, a reputable and independent news outlet, further strengthening the subject’s notability. The table is impressive, though I am unclear why some quotes are not considered significant coverage, as they seem to meet GNG criteria:

- The Reuters article is based on a direct interview with the subject.

- The 2016 Express Tribune article by Salman Siddiqui, from one of Pakistan’s leading English-language newspapers, features prominent quotes from the subject.

- Additionally, a university case study is inherently independent, so I wonder why this is being questioned. Crosji (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every single businessman from Pakistan becomes notable just for being involve in a business inside Pakistan. BLP lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and by looking at image it seems it is a case of COI. 39.34.141.22 (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure why you haven't logged in yet, especially since you seem to have a deeper understanding than the average user. Check THIS VIDEO out to see that the involvement extends beyond Pakistan. - Crosji (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with Wikishovel's table above - I think Profit's article is about Engro so I would not count it as significant coverage about Dawood (I only found a few quotes from him in that article). 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am truly impressed by the expertise and subtlety of this contribution. It appears, however, that this necessitates you remaining anonymous and refraining from responding to my comments, which is quite unfortunate. Crosji (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is notable enough to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article has sufficient WP:PRIMARY and meets the criteria of WP:GNG

221.120.201.170 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC) — 221.120.201.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. UPE concerns are real and definitely hired guns using new accounts are voting keep here. @Wikishovel:'s analysis is fine. 185.189.253.223 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC) — 185.189.253.223 (talk) has made only anonymous edits suggesting the removal of this and a few other topics. [reply]
Pinging all participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samad Dawood which resulted in delete: @Nosebagbear:, @MelvinHans:, and @Bearian:. 185.189.253.223 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the analysis by Wikishovel. Thanks for the ping. Only one source contributes to the subject’s notability, yet several sources add to the company’s notability. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 29 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 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manabu Kubota

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

Played 16 games in Japan's second league twenty years ago, no sign of WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Pu

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. References are not significant and he has played only 9 games in China's third league as well as some in Portuguese amateur leagues. Geschichte (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Has not played in top professional level in China or Portugal. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shunya Suzuki

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

This footballer does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT yet, having only played 108 minutes of league football. Sources provided in Ja:wiki are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:PASSING. Geschichte (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I accidentally read his minutes per season as his games and thought there was potential to expand if one can read Japanese, but 108 minutes in four years is not WP:GNG...and a waste of a Designated Player slot. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of fictional canines. ✗plicit 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in literature

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

Entire list is WP:LISTCRUFT. Should more likely than not be merged into List of fictional canines if not deleted. SirMemeGod  14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional canines. That this was split when it's so short confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional canines, this precise of a list is unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional canines, though even that list needs cleanup and sources to meet NLIST, which can be discussed later. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of fictional canines. ✗plicit 14:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in comics

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

The vast majority of the already-short list is WP:LISTCRUFT, could be merged into List of fictional canines, where an empty section already exists. SirMemeGod  14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional canines, this precise of a list is unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional canines, though even that list needs cleanup and sources to meet NLIST, which can be discussed later. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of fictional canines. ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in animation

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

Seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT. Would also support a merge back to List of fictional canines. SirMemeGod  14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with List of fictional dogs in animated television. Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner and Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog) are the only two articles that exist for the things listed here. Not enough to have a valid list article. There is a list called List of fictional dogs in animated television that has Snoopy, Huckleberry Hound, Jake the Dog, Goofy, Max Goof, Muttley, Pluto (Disney) that have their own articles. Astro and Mr. Peanutbutter have enough content in their show's character articles to be included on a list like this. Clifford (character) article no longer exist, just redirects to a token mention of the character in the main article for that series. Still a notable enough dog to be on a list, so not everything listed should be required to have its own article. Dream Focus 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then what will be the title of the merged list? keep the title List of fictional canines in animation? You suggest to merge the dogs into this, correct? I am not opposed to your proposal nor to a merge back if other users do no think that this list and other that are currently splits from the general list are suitable WP:SPLITLISTs. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional canines per WP:ATD, but I believe this precise of a list fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional canines, though even that list needs cleanup and sources to meet NLIST, which can be discussed later. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing unnecessary duplicate AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athur, Kanniyakumari

AfDs for this article:

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

This page doesn't related to any topic Abin25836 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nom is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athur, Kanniyakumari, dated 14:22, 24 September 2024

Because you vandalized it: Restore and keep this version Paradoctor (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever the hell is going on here, a panchayat town is clearly notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I moved the article back in order to close this discussion. Feel free to move it back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athur, Kanniyakumari

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

This page doesn't related to any topic Abin25836 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I've reverted the article to old name Attoor, Kanyakumari and to the state it was in before @Abin25836 blanked everything and sent it to AfD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nom is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athur, Kanniyakumari (2nd nomination), dated 14:25, 24 September 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever the hell is going on here, a panchayat town is clearly notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slack City

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

Someone tried to draftify this, but they were accused of page-move vandalism when they did so and were informed that sources could be found on Google. I tried Googling, and got a bunch of non-independent/unreliable (blog posts, press releases, etc.); of course, those sorts of sources don't actually prove notability. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I looked hopefully for some RS, based on the edit summary that you mentioned, but only found passing mentions in a very few reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikishovel. I also tried to find sources in places that are known to have good, reliable coverage of UK radio and drew a blank. I found three items:

1. A Guardian radio review article from August 2023, passing mention of one programme produced by the station

2. An interview with a presenter in the Radio Times in January 2023, not about the station, not RS as it is an interview

3. A five-line local newspaper article from the Greenock Telegraph in June 2021 about a local artist who had a song played on Slack City

I also had a look for sources for "totallyradio", which is apparently the station's previous name. Despite this station apparently being 'the UK's longest running internet radio station' there was also nothing of note. I don't feel like these constitute WP:RS, even taken together. Flip Format (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Duma (2005 film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Michaeletos

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Has only appeared in one film. Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duma (2005 film): Fails both NACTOR and GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duma (2005 film) as the seems to be the only movie he starred. Piscili (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Looks like this should be a merge discussion instead, and that the page up for AfD might be the appropriate destination of the merge. This should be sorted out via merge discussion instead. asilvering (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDGE of Existence programme

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

I noticed while editing the following article, that the two overlap significantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDGE_species. I propose housing the EDGE methodology and the programme under one article. Oignonne (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge EDGE species to EDGE of Existence programme: Not enough material to warrant two articles, but neither fails GNG. Narrower topic should be merged into the broader topic. UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Walter Cawthorn. It seems to be clear now that the problem is there are sources that misreport this general's name. I suppose this should also be addressed in the article. Sandstein 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cawthome

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

I propose this page for deletion because no Australian soldier named General Robert "Bill" Cawthome, seconded to Pakistan, ever existed. Several media outlets mistakenly refer to this nonexistent individual as the co-founder of the Inter-Services Intelligence, instead of Major General Sir Walter Joseph "Bill" Cawthorn, an Australian who served as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. While newint.org correctly identifies Cawthorn in this role, it incorrectly refers to him as "R. Cawthorne." Additionally, Dr. Hein G. Kiessling, who has extensive connections within Pakistan's political, military, and intelligence circles, authored Faith, Unity, Discipline: The ISI of Pakistan in 2016, which highlights Walter as the co-founder of the Inter-Services Intelligence. The Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore also supports this, confirming Walter's appointment as Deputy Chief of Staff. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another article originally by Peter Hohnen on Sir Walter Joseph Cawthorn (1896–1970), published in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 13, 1993. This further reinforces my argument that Robert "Bill" Cawthome never existed and is actually being confused with Walter Joseph "Bill" Cawthorn. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The same source by Hein Kiessling that the nom is ruining with their disruptive editing in this edit states:Established in the wake of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48 by British officer Major General Robert Cawthorne, the then deputy chief of staff in the Pakistan Army. In addition, the book by S. K. Dutta states here:Generals of Pakistan and the ISI chiefs, retired and serving, have great admiration for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). One of them described the ISI as the 'most dreaded organization of South Asia'. For Pakistanis, South Asia means India. This sadism dominates the character of this infamous institution, which was created by an Australian-born British Major General Robert Cawthome of the Pakistan Army in 1948. This was the parting gift of the British forces to the Pakistanis. He was so favoured by the Pakistani generals that he was subsequently posted as Australian High Commissioner to Pakistan, where he developed unique close relationships with Iskander Mirza and Gen. Ayub, who were responsible for the derailment of democracy in Pakistan from the very beginning of its creation. Additionally, Amit Bagaria states in his book here:ISI was structured to be operated by officers from the three main military services, and to specialize in the collection, analysis, and assessment of foreign military and non-military intelligence. It was the brainchild of former British Indian Army Major General, Sir Robert Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army, who selected Colonel Shahid Hamid to set up the agency. Truly a very premature nomination created on a whim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Hein Kiessling ever mention a Robert Cawthorne? There is literally NO reference to a Robert Cawthorne anywhere in the book. You're blatantly ignoring all the evidence right in front of you and cherry-picking random sources to support your weak argument. Tell me, would an Indian author really have more insight into Pakistan's agency than Dr. Kiessling, a PhD who literally wrote an entire book on the subject and is renowned for his connections with the Pakistani military? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read pages 14–20 of the book by Hein Kiessling. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the book which is why I'm proposing the page for speedy deletion, page 14 literally says "Major General Walter Joseph Cawthorne"... WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the publisher's note. Additionally, are you suggesting that we should dismiss all these sources by Indian authors solely because they are Indian? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not what I'm saying, don't speak for me or put words in my mouth. I think you're trolling because there is no way you're reading Walter Joseph Cawthorne as Robert Cawthorne.. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Former CIA official Bruce Riedel mentions Walter Joseph Cawthorne, Adjunct Professor Owen L. Sirrs of the University of Montana similarly mentions Walter here, and General Syed Shahid Hamid, Cawthorn's successor, literally mentions him HERE. It's okay to be wrong once in a while, not a big deal. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy Chief of Staff Walter Cawthorn, who also held the additional role of Secretary for the Joint Service Commanders' Committee, appointed Brigadier Mirza Hamid Hussain as the successor to Syed Shahid Hamid as the head of the agency on 23 August 1950. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly confusion over name has led to creation of this duplicative page when we have a page for Walter Cawthorn. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Earlier today I considered deleting this as WP:G3, blatant hoax – until I looked at the page history, that is. There are two confusions at work here, one between Walter and Robert, and the other between Cawthorn and Cawthorne as Walter's surname and between Cawthorne (...ORNE} and Cawthome (...OME) as Robert's surname. Of the three books cited by SheriffIsInTown, the first discusses "Walter Cawthorne" but has no mention of Robert; the other two discuss "Robert Cawthome". There's no doubt that Walter Cawthorn is the person who set up the ISI, even if the Australian Dictionary of Biography neglects to mention that (Cambridge, Taylor & Francis). However, Scholar searches yield:

Walter Cawthorn: 23 results
Walter Cawthorne: 5 results
Robert Cawthorne: 10 results
Robert Cawthome: 5 results.

Given this level of confusion, there should be redirects from the other three name variants to the correct one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, But redirect where? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, to Walter Cawthorn, our article on this person (under his correct name). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walter Cawthorn: Based on the accurate analysis by Justlettersandnumbers — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IcCube

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

Every source is self-published, excessive amount of detail guarantees undisclosed COI, can't find a single secondary source. BrigadierG (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article saturated with primary sources. A before search brought nothing of note. This fails WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Piscili (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Chris Webb and Capterra are secondary sources. What is the sudden interest in a page that is there since 10 years and is fairly similar to any other page about software products or companies. WalterWartenweiler (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC) — WalterWartenweiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do you have any connection to IcCube or its employees? BrigadierG (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have a connection with icCube, but here we are talking about the relevance of this page and the remarks you had about the absence of external references. And anybody discussing this page will have a form of connection with icCube.
Can we keep the discussion on topic please? WalterWartenweiler (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Wikipedia without disclosing a conflict of interest is in violation of WP:COI, WP:UPE and can be grounds for a site block. It is more than relevant to this discussion. 82.163.218.33 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there are many other links to the icCube page from other wikipedia articles on various subjects. WalterWartenweiler (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even external articles from other companies referencing the wikipedia page: https://graphsearch.epfl.ch/en/concept/40000349 WalterWartenweiler (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. icCube has been a part of Wikipedia for over a decade and is also referenced in multiple Wikipedia pages, including Comparison of OLAP servers. It has maintained its place in the ecosystem of OLAP solutions over the years. If the page is lacking in certain areas, I welcome improvements that bring it in line with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Given its inclusion in comparative lists, it would seem odd for icCube to be the only product in that list without its own Wikipedia page, especially when others in the same category have pages. Removal could leave an incomplete representation of the market landscape, but we're open to constructive suggestions to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. (I'm one of the founders of icCube) David.alvarez.iccube (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC) — David.alvarez.iccube (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I suggest you take a real hard look at WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:LONGTIME and then think real hard about bludgeoning this discussion. 82.163.218.33 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is getting personalDavid.alvarez.iccube (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. With the exception of the self-published blog (which is not a reliable source), all of the article's references are non-independent sources, and I could find nothing online that constituted significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The Captera link in the external links section is user-generated content and is not a reliable source. That the article is linked elsewhere on Wikipedia (as most articles are and should be) and a site copied part of the lede from the Wikipedia article are not factors in determining the notability of an article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the 'copied part of the lede from the Wikipedia article', don't get it. Btw, are you going to delete all other OLAP solutions, i.e. Essbase ? David.alvarez.iccube (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEDE is the beginning of the article. That another site copied part of this Wikipedia article has no bearing on this article's notability or suitability as a Wikipedia article. I personally am not going to delete this article, I am commenting here as an editor but would point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as other articles. - Aoidh (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some reliable third party sources that I could easily find online. 2A02:1210:5819:6100:9887:B079:5547:FD7F (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two external links added are reliable third-party sources. This purports to be a "case study" but is actually simply a business advertising theintegration of Renjin, icCube and Inside Vision. This is neither independent nor is it significant coverage, as it is just a short blurb and per the url is listing this article's subject as one of their partners. - Aoidh (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galician exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Spain. toweli (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potentially endless lists of trivial examples of an obvious phenomenon. —Tamfang (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Carper

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

No significant independent coverage, failure to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. Also, the use of IMDb website tells us a lot. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Getting a song into one episode of a TV show was a nice break, but building an article around that one achievement violates WP:BLP1E. Otherwise she gets occasional softball interviews in specialist magazines (e.g. [55]) but she seems to be a local/regional musician with little reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a lot more coverage out there, including one of her albums being named one of the best country albums of the year by Rolling Stone. Also added PopMatters and Houston Press references. There's more out there. I'll try to improve as I have time. Nnev66 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also found an AllMusic staff written bio here which together with the references from Rolling Stone, Pop Matters and others shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (changed vote) - Changing my vote above because the musician was profiled in Rolling Stone, though her reliable sources are still a little scant. There may be enough for a stub article that can be improved over time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP, article is essentially just a list of people so nothing to merge. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Olympics. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be the standard style for OOC articles and the GNG is passed, and of course it's four years off so right now it's all planning and no actual events have occurred. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even see GNG being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Category:Organising Committees for the Olympic Games, this seems to be the general Wikipedia listings for how these are structured. Varies a little by country and/or year, but I think this is the established method. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff isn't a valid deletion rationale. The general Wikipedia rule is that organisations meet WP:NCORP. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. It's a more detailed process than just tagging something with failing NCORP. And it takes months to put these together. The above organizing committee is just one of the steps to go through. If you are concerned about how this one is going, you might consider joining the dialogues at that project, before you start listing their works for deletion. 23:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)— Maile (talk)
So what? There are WikiProjects for many things, it doesn't mean they get to ignore our notability guidelines. The Olympics are 4 years away, if it can't be made ready yet then it shouldn't be in mainspace. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A lot of change can happen to a subject's career in the 9 years since the last AFD nomination and in this case, it looks like there is a consensus to Keep. Typically article page moves are not part of an AFD closure but since this involves removing full protection, I'll carry this out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klea pineda

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

Recreation of salted title at Klea Pineda, which was deleted at this AfD back in 2015. Subject does not seem to be notable enough for a standalone article, and clearly fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she's in the recurring/supporting cast of various (post 2015 (ie post 1st AfD)) notable programmes, so that she meets WP:NACTOR and deletion is not necessary in my opinion. But obviously renaming the page without the (voluntary?) typo is necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nine years after the original AFD, she already enough acting credits to merit her own article (and I can confirm these are not simple bit roles, having watched some of them). Most of the sources now cited in the article are from reputable and notable Philippine news organizations. So this time this article can be a keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here, Klea Pineda has grown so much since she started, that she should receive her own Wikipedia page. She is a competition show winner, starred in multiple TV series, even headlining in some and she has been making in showbiz news for the right reasons. If certain improvements must be done in her page just to keep it, then I would need the help to polish up the page (including fixing the typo, I wasn't sure I could've created it if I spelled it correctly because of the page's history) and make it as good as all the Wikipedia pages of her fellow Pinoy celebrities, so that it may showcase more people to Klea and her talents. Ethanco924 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Klea Pineda: Per reasons above. She has been bagging main roles since Magkaagaw. And all the sources, except for her profile, are reliable. Though the said target should be unsalted for the sake of naming conventions, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG 😎🙃 07:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unsalt "Klea Pineda" and move this article to "Klea Pineda"; subject of the article has become undisputedly notable since the last AFD. Would advise against similar saltings on similar articles in the future. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maika Ceres

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

Article is written from unreliable, non-independent, or self-published sources like blogs, social media, press releases, etc. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uruguay. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blagica Pop Tomova

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

Article is based entirely on the website of the subject's employer. Not clear that the topic passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and North Macedonia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasheel Aukhojee

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

Appears to be largely promo for the business. Sources are interviews or profiles of the company. He's a doctor that does at-home visits, which is rather routine. I find nothing in news or other searches that would help us prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mauritius. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article spends more space explaining how ethnically diverse Mauritius is, and how he went to a fourth-rate medical school in Russia to study medicine, and how nice he is to old people, but doesn’t explain how he’s notable. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Philanthropist? Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Pankratova

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

Article is largely built from the website's of the subjects employers and therefore they lack independence. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. According to the article, she’s sung in two cities; that’s not a tour. She also has a fairly limited repertoire. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Mataeva

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

Article is written like a resume and based on sources connected to the subject. Not clear the article passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. We need more research. Right now, the article is in pretty bad shape. However, if she does have this wide range of repertoire, and she has toured and performed in multiple cities with important companies, and she had a role of the protagonist’s love interest of Tatyana in Eugene Onegin, and we can find sources that document all of it, then she is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. That’s a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian I would support moving it to user or draft space if someone wants to work on it and needs time to source the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Not sure if I can do it, due to being busy IRL. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like a good solution; if no one works on it for 6 months, it gets deleted. A quick search on ProQuest yields 115 results, many of which include substantive comments about Irina Mataeva's performances in those lead roles. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:05, 29 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!} 04:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Faragher

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

No evidence of notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be Toffeenix (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation [56]. He is also the 2023 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Medal and Prize [57]. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record [58] in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. I have added the above two awards to the article including supporting citations. With both the awarded recognition from notable academic institutions and healthy citation record I consider there is sufficient for this PNT specialist to be worthy an article and meet the WP:NPROF guidelines. For the record - in my view - this discipline does not typically attract heavy citation counts so what we see here is fairly high. ResonantDis_tortion 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with David, his awards appear to be fairly major national awards so pass NPROF. When I look at some of the prior awardees they are FRS and one Dame, clearly strong enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my longer comment earlier and as above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Dahlstrom

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

Not notable writer, doesn't pass WP ANYbio and other guidelines. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. given the sources found. If you want to change the article page title or orientation, please start a discussion on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Dam

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

I failed to find SIGCOV for the Sherman Dam besides this one newspaper article from 1963. Otherwise, all mentions appear to be trivial in nature, indicating it fails GNG and WP:NBUILD. Perhaps others will have more luck. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like many dam articles including some at List of dams and reservoirs in Nebraska, the article also covers its reservoir, and the full entity is certainly notable as both infrastructure and a recreation site. Sources include [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] Reywas92^Talk 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are just randomly posting anything with the name appearing in it. If that were enough, almost everything would have a Wiki article. We are talking about reliable and significant coverage from secondary sources, not literally any Google hit. I can't really check the newspaper ones to see if those are major though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insult my ability to review sources, especially if you didn't even review them all. Several of these are in fact substantial coverage adequate for creating an article , and you can sign up for newspapers.com access through Wikipedia:Library. The site seems to be buggy now so it's not letting me create clippings. Indeed, major physical features like resevoirs and infrastructure like dams, especially those that feature state recreation areas, typically have Wiki articles, and this one is notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are clippings for the Newspapers.com links: 1 (cont.), 9 (cont.), 10, 11. (It's still possible to make clippings through the library but not easy to set up; the process is detailed in the comments here.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the reservoir may be more notable than the dam itself which mostly gets mentioned in passing. I'd be fine with withdrawing if the article is moved to Sherman Reservoir instead. The dam can be retained as a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, there are at least three lengthy newspaper articles from newspapers.com covering the dam itself. Unless you want to disagree this is significant coverage, it would seem to me the proper thing to do is to withdraw the AfD and then try to gain consensus at the article talk page for a rename. Oblivy (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a preference if the article is titled for the dam or reservoir – there is not a consistent convention for this since sources may variously cover either or both. I am supportive if you want to go ahead and withdraw and make the move without further discussion. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources identified by @Reywas92 are a mixed bag, but the U of Nebraska museum article and the Foxnebraska article are both significant coverage. Per WP:GEOLAND dams can be notable with significant independent coverage, and as Reywas92 says the article includes the reservoir which doesn't have its own article. Oblivy (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot‎. I'm boldly implementing the reverse merger as an editorial action, thus making the AfD moot. This is under the expectation that it is uncontroversial, so feel free to simply revert this if objecting. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LONGi

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

Duplicate of LONGi Green Energy Technology Amigao (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Two article instances which have developed in parallel over the years. There is additional information in this one which can be merged, and then a redirect can simplify while maintaining the history attribution. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Merge from/to tags to the two articles, so that the proposal is visible to readers of both articles. AllyD (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge seems both technically simple and unlikely to be controversial, though if I had to pick a title I'd actually do LONGi Green Energy Technology into LONGi, since the latter title seems sufficient to uniquely identify the subject. Would anyone object to doing this reverse merge, so that LONGi is the final title, and additionally doing so immediately and closing this discussion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reverse merge, as you propose, seems like a good course of action. - Amigao (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U-12 European Baseball Championship

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

Just a results listing with only sources being primary. Fails GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Europe. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete trivia. Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG . --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pobe-Mengao Department. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pobé Mengao attack

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

WP:News article, I'm unable to find WP:SUSTAINED coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either the place it occurred Pobe-Mengao Department in a history section or Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso#2019. The place is a better target imo but a mention should be added to the other PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I prefer Pobe-Mengao Department as a merge target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge and, if so, a decision on an appropriate target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need to settle on one Merge target if that is an appropriate ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Disregarding the socks, this is a clear Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiseh Jamal

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

Fails notability, her achievements (even if they are correct) are in youth level. she never won anything in a major event. the article tries to sell her as a world and Asian senior medalist. Sports2021 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only success has come in junior events. According to the WKF records, she has competed in 9 events as an adult and never medaled. As an adult she has never qualified for a continental or world championship and is currently ranked #90. I found no significant independent coverage, mainly reports of Iranian youth team results. Doesn't meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In karate, unlike many other sports, there is no significant difference between the youth (under-21) and adult competitions in terms of credibility and status. In fact, both the youth and adult categories are evaluated at the same level, and there is no distinction in the value and importance of their achievements. This is often misunderstood by those who lack sufficient expertise in this sport. Many uninformed individuals, including some media outlets, may assume that youth competitions are less important than adult competitions. However, the reality is that youth competitions in karate are held with the same level of difficulty and seriousness, and the medals earned in both categories hold equal credibility and value.Particularly in prestigious continental events like the Asian Championships, which are overseen by the World Karate Federation (WKF), the medals are recognized as global successes. The quality of these competitions does not differ from that of adult competitions, and in many cases, athletes who achieve medals in the youth category quickly find remarkable success at the international adult level as well.This misunderstanding regarding the differences between age categories leads some individuals to fail to recognize the valuable achievements of athletes. However, from the perspective of experts and those who are deeply familiar with the structure of karate, such successes, even in the youth category, are by no means less significant than those in the adult category.Please advise users who lack sufficient knowledge about this sport not to remove templates or edit the article, as doing so only harms the integrity of information, such as that found on Wikipedia in English, and spreads misinformation about karate. Maintaining accuracy and reliability in the discourse surrounding this sport is essential.InfoExplorer2023 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails sports notability. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of deleting certain sports articles, particularly regarding karate, requires careful and in-depth consideration. In this discipline, competitions and medals directly reflect the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. Karate, as a martial art, demands advanced techniques and high concentration, which can only be achieved through continuous practice and competition at the adult level.In karate, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are held in a professional and competitive manner. Winning a medal in Asian competitions, regardless of age, demonstrates the high abilities and skills of this athlete at an international level.Deleting these articles is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable from the perspective of the documentation and credibility of Wikipedia's sources. These articles can remain as reliable references in the field of karate and contribute to documenting the history and achievements of athletes.Therefore, based on my expertise in Wikipedia and the sport of karate, I firmly state that this article should be preserved to enhance the recognition of karate athletes' achievements and to document the history of this sport within Wikipedia.BookLover070 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. We all wish to minimize unnecessary churning, but "it will be recreated anyway" is not a valid P&G-based argument to keep a page that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria today. Owen× ☎ 20:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Northern Territory general election

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Article only has one source, and it does not say anything about the election in 2028. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thought about a redirect but I really couldn't find a suitable target. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Northern Territory Legislative Assembly maybe? otherwise yeah delete Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Next Northern Territory general election. No point in deleting the page when it will only need to be remade again. Viatori (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article does not prevent it from being recreated when more sources emerge. Having to be remade again is a given and is not a reason against deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Next Northern Territory general election or keep, for the same reasons as Viatori. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Just a point of information, an AFD closer can not close a discussion with a decision to "Move" an article because that is an editing decision. So, if you want to Move this article, "vote" Keep and then have a Move discussion afterwards on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neutral on keeping the article, but just wanted to say that the suggestions of moving it to Next Northern Territory general election are misplaced. "Next" is used in election article titles when the date of the next election is uncertain. However, Northern Territory has fixed-term parliaments and the next election must take place in 2028, so the current title is correct. Number 57 01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep since the previous election cycle is over and there is now verifiable information about the next. In terms of naming, the 2008 Northern Territory general election indicates that elections can be called early? Has something changed on a constitutional level? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON and page recreation in 2027 when it's appropriate is not that hard. Nate • (chatter) 16:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nate, too soon - recreate much closer to the date when it’s not just speculation. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:55, 29 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 00:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Poulenard

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Feel free to discuss an article page move now that the AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald MacMillan (rugby union)

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

No sources, and seems to have no real notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Known as "Ian" rather than Donald, which may assist your searches. Plenty of coverage on Trove and I've added some of them to the page. Got more results for the typo "Mc"Millan.[70] Jevansen (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have a review of the new content additions. Also, please do not move an article that is the subject of an AFD discussion during the AFD. It confuses our editing tool, XFDcloser which doesn't understand why the article is at a different name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Was not aware of this. Jevansen (talk) Jevansen (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the new sources add, meets NSPORT. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:09, 29 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 04:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Arsalan Heidarzad

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

Fails notability, never did anything important in his career. completely unknown. Sports2021 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of his successes were as a pre-teen or teenager, which doesn't show WP notability. He never competed at any European or world championships, either in a youth or adult division. As an adult he never finished in the top 10 of any WKF sanctioned tournament and lost more fights than he won. The sources merely report results and mistakenly refer to the Karate 1 series of events as "world championships" instead of relatively minor events. Papaursa (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCarePro

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

I'm not seeing much evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Medicine, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's been a while since I've looked at this topic. All things considered, before I research the topic any further, perhaps changing it to a stub article would be a better move than deletion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be no coverage outside of WP:TRADES publications. The coverage I could find consists of press releases, sponsored articles, and routine coverage. I'm unable to access sources 2 and 5 but it is very unlikely that they contain enough coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the company's notability beyond its niche market. The content largely focuses on promotional aspects and lacks significant third-party coverage --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb

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

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.

Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"

Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:

Delete -

Wikipedia's criteria for notability regarding articles about academics are listed as follows:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

I do not believe any of these apply here.

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Does not apply here.

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Does not apply here.

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Does not apply here.

It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the research is not "significantly impactful" by Wikipedia's criteria. The individual behind the now-deleted accounts @Xerxescience and @Pantrail worded the content of the article to sound more impactful than it actually is. For example, why is it that Mr. Al-Shayeb "led" the work (as written in the Wikipedia article in question) that he co-first-authored with others while being supervised by his graduate school advisors, yet Mr. Al-Shayeb "supervised" the work (again, as the now-banned accounts wrote in the Wikipedia article in question) that was first-authored by another individual? For example, Mr. Al-Shayeb's co-founder and CEO, Dr. Jacob Borrajo, is first author on the most recent manuscript mentioned in the Wikipedia article in question and is also continuing to move the work forward as a current executive of Amber Bio (apparently without Mr. Al-Shayeb's "supervision"). In this example, it is clear to anyone in the field that Dr. Borrajo made the most substantial contributions to this work that is one of the Mr. Al-Shayeb's key accomplishments, yet Dr. Borrajo does not have a Wikipedia page. The same could be said for some of the other co-first authors and supervisors on the studies listed on Mr. Al-Shayeb's Wikipedia page.

If one were to argue that Mr. Al-Shayeb somehow meets the WP:NACADEMIC standards, then all 2000-3000 people issued an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship each year should have a Wikipedia page. Forbes 30 under 30 is not an academic award and uses irrelevant metrics such as how much wealth someone has as key criteria for selection, but if it were, then do we give all 600 people recognized with the Forbes 30 under 30 award each a Wikipedia page? And the tens of thousands of people who graduate with PhDs from prestigious universities and contribute work to renowned scientific journals; do we give all of them a Wikipedia page? No, because the line must be drawn somewhere. In this case, Mr. Al-Shayeb clearly falls on the side of the line that does not warrant this page to exist. Hemelina (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the closer: Please treat the now-blocked accounts Pantrail and Xerxescience as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~
I think this article should be deleted because the subject clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The subject is not listed on any academic institution's website as being currently affiliated. There is no publicly available evidence that the subject has ever held an independent position at any academic institution that wasn't under the direct supervision of other faculty members. The subject is presented on the article as a "biotech executive", yet the subject is not currently listed as an executive on any current company's website. Disturbingly, two now-blocked accounts who turned out to be the same person, @Pantrail and @Xerxescience, repeatedly deleted verifiably true and well-cited edits made by multiple independent contributors. I will remind the individual behind these accounts that information cannot be libelous or defamatory if it is true. The individual behind these accounts, who I deduce is either the subject of this article or financially tied to the subject of this article, also reverted the article to present misleading information that promoted the financial interests of the article's subject. Wikipedia is not the place to advance individual financial interests. Please delete. Hemelina (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemelina, first, you can only cast one bolded "vote" so I have struck your duplicate vote. Secondly, you have only been editing a week and have made a total of 12 edits, most of them to this article and AFD. You have no other global contributions with this account so I'm assuming you typically edit with a different account since you seem to have the Wikipedia jargon down pat. So, at least for me, your opinion carries less weight. I'd still like to hear from some "uninvolved" editors as all participants seem to have some sort of COI with this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We really need some uninvolved and non-sock editors to review this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Note, this guy is a predoc fellow as per Google Scholar, which by definition means WP:NACADEMIC almost certainly does not apply. His H-Index is extremely high for a pre-doc, as per google scholar. [71], so maybe WP:NACADEMIC could apply in the future, but it is nowhere near high enough to apply right now.
Much of the sourcing is not independent or reliable or only mentions the subject in passing. Much of the sourcing that talks about his start up seems like promotional PR that goes along with any business.
The current writing on the article is strained and tortuous. At one point, there is a mention that Shayeb’s work is cited by a Nobel Laureate? I’d half-argue for WP:TNT even if the subject was notable enough.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also… what the heck happened that editors have a personal vendetta against a pre-doc scientist? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The only content in this article which could form a basis for notability is scientific output, within WP:NPROF. With an h-factor of 20, 3000 total citations and no senior awards he does not come close to any of the qualifications. This is an AfD where the case for delete is exceedingly strong, one of the strongest NPROF I have seen, but a lot of "noise" has been generated including many inappropriate personal attacks. Fortunately experienced editors/reviewers ignore inappropriate comments. For reference, I have no connection with anything here, but have done a fair bit of WP work. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sources (as requested). As mentioned above he does not qualify under WP:NPROF by a long distance. The points made in the article about the startup receiving funding count towards whether Amber Bio is notable enough to merit a page. However, they do not count towards his WP:GN, just as a notable book does not necessarily make the author notable. As some specifics on the sources:
1. ORCID was duplicated (cleaned)
2. Article contains significant WP:MILL for an academic, such as being a peer reviewer -- these should be deleted as irrelevant.
3. Many authors in the papers. While not as large as HEP, this has to be considered for impact.
4. Citing a Nobel Prize presentation is not what I would consider to be a strong source, particularly as the article comes from his supervisor -- WP:PEACOCK.
5. Forbes cite on paper in Nature was invalid, removed
6. Claim that genome editing system reported in Science Magazine was unsourced, deleted
7. Claim of methane-oxidizing archaea reported in Nature is not verified, deleted
8. Claim that he "supervised research" is not validated by source, which states "co-supervised". Changed
9. Claim that he was listed as an "All-Star Alumni for his scientific contributions" not verified, so "for his scientific contributions removed".
Ldm1954 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments on sources.
1. The article claims that he coined the term "Borg's", but C&EN says that came from Jillian Banfield’s son. I trust C&EN.
There certainly are (were) substantial liberties taken with the sources. They do provide coverage, but I do not see anything in the sources which prove sufficient peer recognition for him. Several might support the startup, but that is out of context here. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create protect per WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. There’s clearly a lack of a minimum of three articles or books with significant coverage about this person in reliable and independent sources; I count precisely zero. He’s not a named professor or similar academic. His $26 million startup is one of dozens in the world today working on CRISPR. I took a graduate course online in summer 2021 where AP Biology teachers were taught how to use the technology (the only reason I didn’t use it was because I registered at too late to do the lab portion of the class, but I still earned an A for my final project). So it’s nothing special. Finally, in 2024, everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn’t exist to help people with publicity; we are an encyclopedia. Many of our readers don’t grok how we handle notability, but even 14 year olds understand that we have standards; to claim otherwise is to deny one’s own agency in the age of Internet 2.0. We are a charity, and not just a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Krezymon

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

Non-notable musician and professor fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:MUSICIAN. This article is one of a series of promotional articles (a walled garden of sorts) surrounding the so-called Empathism "movement" and the poet Menotti Lerro (who "invented" Empathism and wrote it's manifesto), and the "award" given to the people who adhere to Empathism. Other articles of questionable notability are the other "members" as well as Lerro's Cilento International Poetry Prize and others. Two SPA's are creating numerous articles that all connect back to Lerro (hence the "walled garden"), whose article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted for lack of notability. The whole group of articles are WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Music. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all musicians are notable, no indication he meets NBIO and such. Not notable as written

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Netherzone. Axad12 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fragility

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

This article covers a definition of a term used by one person, it does not appear to be a broader subject of academic discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term doesn't appear exclusive to Loury. McWhorter uses it (here, here), and Steele uses it in a very different context. Regardless, I'm not finding coverage of the concept itself, to the extent it exists, or evidence that it's a unified concept among the scholars who have deployed it. I also don't see an appropriate redirect to White fragility since the article does not currently use the term in discussing McWhorter's criticism of DiAngelo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 3 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 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term has been the subject of academic papers 1 2, at least one book written by a social scientist 3, and some articles like this one 4. Cortador (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of Cortador's sources, the first two papers (by Steele) are actually the same paper published in two different venues (one a journal, one a book chapter, still the same article). Apart from the headline, the term "black fragility" does not appear once in the paper's text. The book written by Carter, the "social scientist," is self-published. (The author appears to be a corporate trainer/consultant.) The article by Gobodo-Madikizela has a single reference in it to "black fragility": "What concerns me is the trap of black fragility, when the reaction to the behaviour of racists is interpreted as if the particular racist actually is in a position of power in relation to the person who is the target of the racist slur." Thus, Steele and Gobodo-Madizkizela do not constitute WP:SIGCOV and Carter's work is not a reliable source under WP:SPS. Thus, none of these sources contribute to a WP:GNG pass for this concept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cortador. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even close. First of all, the article is a wild failure of WP:NFCC, comprising mostly a three-paragraph quote (!). This is not the Manhattan Institute website, so we should not be hosting entire articles based nothing on that think tank's publication. Even if there were all the sources in the world about this subject, it's still a complete WP:TNT case. But it's also not notable, as far as I can tell. As per Dclemens1971's analysis above, we have exactly one independent reliable source. The question is where to redirect it. I'd recommend redirecting to White Fragility and adding a line there about some critics using "black fragility" (which would, of course, mean omitting most of the sourcing identified in favor of those which explicitly talk about DiAngelo). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. With the source review, I'm not convinced this is a Keep but we do need consensus on the outcome and whether or not a Redirect is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no redirect – Dclemens1971 shows this term has extremely minor usage and does not appear to constitute a coherent and consistent idea between the few people who use it. It's simply a rhetorical device for a snappy headline in reference to "white fragility." Since it doesn't exist as an independent idea it shouldn't deserve even passing mention elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so should not be redirected. Should be WP:TNT for the massive copyvio quote. Dan • ✉ 20:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JEDA Technologies

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

Non-notable company, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Tule-hog (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. Although I found lots of coverage, all of it is in WP:TRADES publications. Practically all of the coverage is routine product announcements. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The source analysis is pretty convincing that, given the sources that have been located as of today, do not help establish notability as Wikipedia judges it. Perhaps at a future date this might change but if you want to work on a better article, please do so in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Wood (William Lawrence Hansen)

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

There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. UPDATE: I have improved the article in terms of references and content. (9/28/24) Starlighsky

Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to find those. Starlighsky (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an abundance of information on ASCAP of his music as well as who performed his music. However, it is challenging to understand.

ACE Repertory (ascap.com) Starlighsky (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP is a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t have biographies on every single person who ever lived and worked in the movies or on TV. We are not, nor ever been, a directory of everyone in “The Business” like ASCAP or IMDB. I hope everyone understands why we strive to be more reliable. This page has to be deleted because there’s not enough information about the person, other than a bare minimum of what he edited. According to our policy: “Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources.” Sorry. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to add that it is the biography of an editor who went by a pseudonym to write music with notable songwriters. Starlighsky (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I research this, the more it seems like the television and film projects could be valuable resources for the Wikipedia community:
As William Lawrence Hansen:
Al Jolson's Old-Time Minstrel Show 1952
William Lawrence Hansen
(Compilation: songs and text)
BMI Television Sketchbook Sketches (1951)
William Lawrence Hansen
& Henry M. Katzberg
19 Celebrated Baritone Solos (1950)
William Lawrence Hansen
(Compilation)
Songs from the film Bambi (1951)
Edited by Bill Hansen Starlighsky (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need reliable sources to verify notability, not editors' opinions that a subject is important. You have a few more days to find those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in the article's talk page brief questions about how or if I cite certain references. Starlighsky (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Going to do a quick assessment of the sources currently in the article, including recent additions by Starlighsky.

All in all, we have no WP:SIGCOV qualifying toward WP:GNG. None of his songs appear notable either so we have no pass on WP:NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify references. The newspaper citation was a list of newspaper mentioning the song "Dreaming of My Girl in Indiana", which was a song that had extensive press coverage when it was released. That song is notable. I will keep working on it. Starlighsky (talk) 02:03, 29 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. ✗plicit 00:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-min (footballer, born 1947)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played at the Olympics and managed the national team, clearly notable - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve per GiantSnowman. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminding participants that WP:GNG has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as per above

Lâm (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per GiantSnowman. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman has played in the Olympics and managed the national team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clear consensus to Keep but it's not clear that sources verify content and establish GNG. This is the second relisting comment on this subject so if they do, please state that rather than give a "per" statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: I'm failing to see the notability here. The references provided are just profiles and clearly doesn't have any SIGCOV. I'm not convinced of the established notability comment per GiantSnowman. Taking part in Olympics doesn't warranty any notability, if there aren't any sources backing it up. My search results also turned out nil and clearly no SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through BF11's comment, it's evidence some notability might be present in the North Korean sources. I'm okay with a draftify too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly one of the examples were requiring strict SIGCOV compliance is patently absurd. Where on earth are we supposed to go to find North Korean newspaper archives? I can only note that in a scene in the film The Game of Their Lives (regarding the 1966 North Korean team), one North Korean player showed a book full of newspaper headlines for the top players with the national team – so it is obvious that the sport was very well-covered at the time and I don't see why a few years later would have been any different. Another way to notability would be WP:ANYBIO if Kim received any of the top honors in North Korea, which would be either Merited Athlete or People's Athlete. Looking up his name (김정민) in relation to the title Merited Athlete (공훈체육인) I get results including a piece from the Minju Choson stating in the preview "화원1동에 입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소의 김정민，량은향 로동자부부 ... 공훈체육인칭호가 수여되였다． 로력훈장이 1명에게，국기훈장 제2급이 18명 . [Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang, workers of the Mangyongdae District Waterworks Management Office in Hwawon 1-dong, were awarded the title of Meritorious Sportsman.]" – I have a strong feeling this was him (esp. given that we have no other North Korean 'Kim Jong-min's) but I receive warning messages when entering the site so I can't look further. Searching his name in relation to the 'Mangyondae District Waterworks Management Office' ("입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소" "김정민") brings up another piece from the Rodong Sinmun further discussing 'Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang' ("화원1동에 입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소의 김정민, 량은향 로동자부부는 현대적인 살림집을 받아안고보니 우리 원수님의 은덕이 너무도 크고 ... [Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang, workers of the Mangyongdae District Waterworks Management Office in Hwawon 1-dong, received a modern house and realized that the grace of our Marshal was so great...]") but likewise I cannot access it further. IMO I'd like to keep this given how accomplished he is and how ridiculous it is to find North Korean newspaper sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with BeanieFan11's argument - proving WP:GNG for a North Korean would be extremely difficult. At the same time, the article gives very little information about the subject and needs improving. It makes sense to draftify and find sources to add to it so that it can be more useful to readers.DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support that outcome and would expand it when I get the chance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:23, 29 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. It appears that the sources brought up in this discussion address the nominator's concerns. I hope they can be added to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPC and World Political Parties Summit

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

This one-off video conference fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no indication of WP:LASTING effect whatsoever. Amigao (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ideas of "No continued coverage" or "no lasting effect" is readily shown to be wrong by the second source, a 2023 academic book discussing the topic over multiple pages. In addition, we currently have multi-language coverage. "Video conference" should not suggest unimportance given the scope and period - event included 500 political parties and 10,000 individual representatives and was conducted in 2021 when China was still quite protective on COVID19 matters. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how notable the book source cited is, as it's not an online reference. I can bring up news coverage of the event in 2021. Sourcing is largely in academic journals, into 2023 at least [72], where it's discussed as part of China's larger influence in the world. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for spotting. We should incorporate more journal articles.
Current book academic source I referred to is from the notable Suisheng Zhao and published by Stanford University Press JArthur1984 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, participants, do you believe the existing sources are sufficient for establishing GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for me, and I also incorporated the 2023 academic source identified by Oaktree b's. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skycoach

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

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Sources are reprints of press releases. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE doesn't show any third party coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written entirely from sources. Sources talk about news about the platform's activities, it is usually. All the facts that are in the article find confirmation in open independent sources. Jane230 (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – can't find any independent and secondary sources. The sources in the current version of the article are in fact one and the same source, a press release reprinted in four different places, with two of them being slightly rewritten but it's still the same source. --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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