Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 12	November 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep: non-constructive request (non-admin closure) AntiDionysius (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Primus (band)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Primus (band)

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

The least commercially viable band on Earth is not notable. Primus sucks. I do not feel bad for the four mentally ill fans of Primus who will lose this page. 橋本健二 (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauris Bērziņš

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

Delete – I really struggled to find any references at all. The single external link in the article does not work, either on the original site or archive.org, and other WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:SPORTCRIT. In particular, I couldn’t find anything to satisfy Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Finally, taking the results stated in the article as they stand: even if they were substantiated, notability would, I suggest, be a reach. It is possible that there are more extensive and significant sources in Latvian to establish notability, in which case I would be happy to retract my delete recommendation. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ishtiaq Ghafoor

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

Declined prod. One of the sources added is a small mention of him [1] and not WP:SIGCOV. Normally notable weightlifters have at least competed in Olympics or medalled in a major competition. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The very first source says he won a silver medal at the 2006 South Asian Games. I know nothing about that competition or whether or not that makes him notable.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although he's not an Olympian but having participated in Asian and Common Wealth games and as a medalist in South Asian games makes him somewhat notable from Pakistani standards. Muneebll (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Farm Bureau

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no ostensible notability. Article is almost exclusively unsourced and written by the organization themselves (user 'Ilfb1916' clearly violates WP:ISU and implies this is the subject itself), being functionally a billboard instead of a resource with any encyclopedic merit. IP editor who removed PROD did so under the justification of "Useful links and relevance due to member and partner organizations", but this is complete nonsense as it pertains to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an interesting kettle of fish. On the one hand, we would presumably have a clear example of what WP:BRANCH was intended for; failing to find sources outside of the branch unit's area of operation, we would redirect to the parent organization. On the other hand, on this very day the American Farm Bureau Federation kicked the Illinois Farm Bureau out of the federation over a membership/business dispute, and as of December the state bureau will not have a parent organization, litigation and backroom dealing pending. I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the organization in non-WP:TRADES publications separate from this dispute, and that coverage is all in agricultural trade publications and local news outlets in small Illinois markets. In the absence of an WP:NORG pass and without an appropriate WP:BRANCH redirect target, I'd have to !vote delete. Open to an WP:IAR redirect to American Farm Bureau Federation too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Uh... Wow. I was not expecting this to take that direction. The WP:BEFORE I'd done for this organization was two days ago, so this wasn't even on my radar when I nominated it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the NPR story given already above the IFB is the largest insurer of farms in the state of Illinois. It's a significant company with a lengthy history. There is significant coverage in the following including a book about the company:

Nancy K. Berlage. "Organizing the Farm Bureau: Family, Community, and Professionals, 1914-1928" Agricultural History, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 406-437 (32 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3745183
Farmers Helping Farmers: The Rise of the Farm and Home Bureaus, 1914-1935 (2016, Louisiana State University Press)
Dan Leifel and Norma Haney. The Diamond Harvest: A History of the Illinois Farm Bureau (Bloomington: Illinois Agricultural Association, 1990).
Cynthia Clampitt. Mid- west Maize: How Corn Shaped the U.S. Heartland (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015).
Additionally JSTOR has 240 hits when searching on the "Illinois Farm Bureau" and there are more than 9,000 hits in PROQUEST with lots of SIGCOV news coverage across many decades. Sourcing and WP:ORGCRIT is not an issue here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on these sources:

The first two (the Agricultural History article and the LSU Press book) are both by the same author, Nancy Berlage. Collectively these would count as one source (since they are not intellectually independent of each other).
Dan Leifel and Norma Maney both worked for the Illinois Farm Bureau for decades, Leifel as general counsel and Maney as an executive assistant. Their history of the IFB cannot be considered an independent source.
Can you point to what in the Clampitt book refers to the Illinois Farm Bureau? I can't access the text but the snippets available via Google Books indicate it's only index mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you can share how Clampitt discusses the subject. (If it was pulled from this Illinois historiography article, it's clear the author is talking about the Maney and Leifel book, not saying Clampitt covered the IFB in her book: Agriculture remains a critical part of the Illinois economy. A recent centennial history of the Illinois Farm Bureau offers a broad look at state agriculture including the post World War II period. Cynthia Clampitt wrote a history of midwestern corn production that includes work on Illinois.)
The "NPR" story I linked above is actually a local radio story from an NPR affiliate and doesn't pass the WP:AUD test.
I paged through many of the JSTOR listings and didn't find any additional WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the Berlage article above, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.

Based on this analysis, I see only one WP:SIRS source to pass WP:NORG. Open to reviewing more if you can supply additional examples. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Barbe

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

I wrote this article well over 10 years ago and now I do not believe it qualifies for a Wikipedia article based on WP:GNG. All the sourcing I can find is just passing mentions. Thanks for assuming good faith on this nomination. Missvain (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Wine, France, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. A shame, because it seems like an interesting topic.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Aiken

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

I started this Wikipedia article many years ago. Now, in hindsight, I do not believe that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article due to notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. All the mentions of the subject are merely passing and not significant. Missvain (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Wine, California, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references are adequately in-depth and most are primariy or exclusively about her. They are more than passing mentions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nileena Abraham

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

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Would having been the Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji Professor of Bengali at the International School of Dravidian Linguistics, Thiruvananthapuram count as a named chair for the purposes of meeting WP:PROF? Also is the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M considered completely unreliable? (Although the Google Books link given is incorrect, the subject does appear on pp. 7–8.[2]) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it very odd for someone with only Master's degrees to hold a C5-qualifying named chair. And the school isn't even notable itself! JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay I think it's easy to become very US/UK centric with these named chairs.

On the question of GNG, I found a substantial material on Abraham in JSTOR .5325/complitstudies.53.2.0359, which has substantive (~3pp) coverage of her work translating Arogyaniketan by Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay, with some bio material. Considered together with the award, and Who's Who entry, and given that the above source is talking about work in 1961 and not in English, I feel that further expert research offline by someone who speaks the relevant languages is likely to uncover more material, so I'm going with keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Oyama

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

This bio does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Oyama is probably best known for his apperances on Dropout, of which I am a fan and subscriber, so I don't take any pleasure in nominating this article for deletion; however, I'm just not seeing the sourcing to meet our notability requirements. All of the sources in the article are either passing mentions, interviews, or not independent of the subject, and I'm not able to find any better sources in my WP:BEFORE.

Oyama may become notable in the future, so draftification would be a reasonable option. Redirecting to Dropout (media company)#Cast members would also be a reasonable alternative to deletion. I'm open to discussion on what the best course of action would be. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged the article, 55.55 days ago, as likely not meeing muster for Wikipedia:Notability; it hasn't improved sufficiently since. Redirecting to Dropout (media company)#Cast members is probably fine (the entrant there is even sourced), and would preserve the preexisting work for possible expansion in some future. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, probably best to redirect to ensure the history is preserved. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little weird to me for him to be the only regular from Dimension 20 without an article, but that's not a valid argument to keep the page. So I guess redirect for now. Though, this might be worth revisiting as early as January since it's possible that the live Dimension 20 show at Madison Square Garden could generate enough coverage of him to establish notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirecting is the right call. I ran into a similar problem as Lord Bolingbroke with trying and failing to find good sources. The article was supposedly made as the result of a reddit thread discussing how Zac didn't have an article rather than any notability outside of the Dropout fanbase, but I don't think it's out of the question that sources will eventually pop up that can get the artcile to meet GNG. LaffyTaffer (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT. None of the sources count toward notability. Source #1 is a podcast interview with his friend from high school, so it's not independent. Source #2 is a brief playbill bio, and sources #3, #4, and #5 are one-line passing mentions – does not establish notability. Source #6 was written by Oyama himself (primary source). A redirect to the Dropout cast makes sense. Nodicenomasters (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Abiouness

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

Nominating an article I wrote for deletion. I wrote it in 2012. I do not believe that this subject qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia due to WP:Notability. Missvain (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Wine, California, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhareswar Mandir, Baldiabandha, Dhenkanal, Odisha

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

Exists in draftspace as well. Totally unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Odisha. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A shrine of Lord Sikhareswar in village Baldiabandha ia a well-known temple .Though not much publicity in newspapers/social media is there. Over the years, this religious institution has come up as a centre for Saivite worship.It is a green temple in serene natural environment in Dhenkanal.I earnestly submit to you consider this stub article,a part of subaltern history of this region.

Warm regards and gratitude JAMKUM (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google News reveals nothing same goes with books and the article is written like an advert. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I Draftify this because of that. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There’s something going on, and it’s impossible to determine if it’s being done in good faith (so we need to WP:AGF). IP editors are leaving comments on the talk page of the article and AfD begging for this article to be kept. I can understand one or two IP editors doing this, editing logged out out of principle is A Thing, but I’ve never seen this many IP editors do this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Min-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Kyong-jin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short piece on him here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea as alternative to deletion, where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Hyon-jin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigcov here, which is about 700 words jointly-focused on him and one other player. One could certainly write a decent-sized start/c bio here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - to give BeanieFan11 the time to write a proper article. Giant Snowman 21:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[3] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are a mixture of not mentioning Mirza, passing mentions and interviews 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some serious cleanup. She's a noted participant in a notable show: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2437664/voters-declare-aruba-mirza-winner-of-tamasha-season-2 https://24newshd.tv/24-Sep-2023/fans-disapprove-of-aruba-mirza-s-victory-in-popular-tv-show-tamasha https://www.trendinginsocial.com/tamasha-season-2-winner/ Coverage about her private life also abounds. She does seem to be notable enough. (FWIW Various roles presented as lead/main in the articles about series she played in). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has done both supporting and lead roles and in this source it is mentioned how she started her career also she appeared in Tamasha Season 2 and she won.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC))^[1]^[2][reply]
Comment - As a winner of a notable TV show I would say there "should" be significant coverage, but everything presented in the discussion with the exception of this has no byline and would be churnalism or otherwise unreliable. I also found some tabloid-type references about an engagement but those wouldn't be suitable for notability. Is there by chance an alternative spelling of the name I can use for search; or, any non-English sources that someone can point out that would be considered significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will check in other languages news usually in Urdu.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

Draftify: For the time being until more reliable sources are added. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article includes sufficient references to meet GNG. Notable sources, such as The News (Ruling the Charts), ARY News (Papa Ki Pari, Kahani Kahan Se Shuru Hui), The News (Rang Mahal Final Episode), and The Express Tribune, provides substantial coverage of the subject's career, media appearances, TV roles, and win in a popular show. Additionally, other brief mentions in various sources contribute to satisfying the WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTOR. Subject has done multiple significant roles in notable Tv shows.

Zuck28 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable name in drama industry and passes notability criteria. Referencing is enough to establish that, Urdu news items are also from mainstream Urdu media. Muneebll (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the request, no coverage has been presented that show significant coverage. I see keep votes stating "clearly" notable or making the claim of being a "notable name" or having significant roles but not supported by references required by WP:NACTOR. Regardless of roles, there needs to be significant coverage to show it. Notability is not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is met. Based on the provided references, each offers moderate coverage, and the combined use of multiple independent sources can effectively establish notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel otherwise which is why I say significant coverage has not been presented. Of the five presented as evidence in this AfD (note it is four as one is a duplicate), all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of this which I would question as reliable based on no listed editorial guidelines and advertising which includes "article publishing." I am open to review anything else someone wants to provide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. While there are numerous sources available online covering her career, TV appearances, and roles, individually, they may not meet the threshold for significant coverage. However, when considered collectively, they do. As for your concern about paid content, none of the sources are affiliated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as they all come from Pakistani media, not Indian outlets (not saying that your indications are wrong or right). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes confusion about the name NEWSORGINDIA (which I think needs to be changed by the way), but there are several editors who agree it applies to media in that region as a whole, not just the country. Regardless, we can call it churnalism which is essentially the same thing. Reprinted press releases, paid media, etc. It doesn't have to be paid to fall under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Churnalism" can be addressed separately if you want to mention it in that context, and that's fine. However, NEWSORGINDIA still applies as a guideline for Indian media, even if editors agree it's intended for the broader subcontinental region (which I believe is what you were referring to). That said, I don’t see a valid reason to delete this article under WP:NEXIST. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I can no longer discuss as it is going in circles. Let me be clear......I agree with you on NEXIST. The problem is that I have searched for suitable sources and they do not exist. The ones presented by keep votes are not reliable or not significant. We don't just assume sources must exists if we have searched for and been unable to locate them. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Even if WP:GNG is not met, that doesn't matter as the sources prove an WP:SNG is met. SNGs are a perfectly valid pathway to establishing notability under policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. WP:ANYBIO says people are presumed notable when there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, but that people are only likely to be notable if they meet the following standards, of which NACTOR is one. That is, NACTOR creates a refutable likelihood of notability. The guideline specifically says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What really matters is the secondary sources from which the page can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a clear majority but these aren't very strong arguments. Keep folks: what sources do you find the most convincing? If there are strong sources in Urdu, can we see them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was blanked by the author, who also attempted to blank the entire log. Subject does not seem to be immediately notable, though I'm not sure if the article is significantly different from the version deleted in 2019. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for why this article should now be removed, is because Taylor is a mayor of a city with a population with 50,000. Also, the article is well sourced about M. Taylor. Lastly I added edits on how he made national news on two occasions, which wasn’t the case back in 2019. So it seems like he has significant credibility on becoming an article for Wikipedia. Raspberry505 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. One endorsement does not notability make. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperintensity

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

Is mostly a fork of White matter hyperintensity Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:40, 6 November 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 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. White matter hyperintensity is a redirect to Leukoaraiosis which is only one disease that has pathology involving Hyperintensity. Leukoencephalopathy, hypoxic brain injury, etc. also have T2 hyperintensity imaging results. Not really seeing a need to delete this as they are different by related topics with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... saw Leukoaraiosis mostly talking about WMH, but you are right. I think its the a subcategory of WMH, so surprising it takes up the whole WMH redirect.
There is some weirdness happening here.
- Leukoaraiosis is a subcategory of WMH, and I think does not appear much often at all in literature (only 20k hits on google Scholar).
- WMH is the more widely used supercategory to define a presentation. (>100k hits on google scholar)
- Hyperintensity by itself does not mean much, just abnormal increase in intensity of something, this article is more about White matter hyperintensities.
I might be in favor of a merge Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overbolding of every other term in the first few paragraphs of hyperintensity definitely suggest a lack of focus for the page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s more of a style issue which can be fixed (although redirected words should be bolded under MOS). Honestly I think it’s best to leave the article where it is because hyperintensity, while more common in white matter, can also occur in gray matter. Gray matter hyperintensity is associated with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and can also be a sign of a stroke.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those are fairly different clinical bases in general even if they show up similar in MRI.

a similar analogy would be high body temp… maybe its cuz person has a fever maybe they have heat stroke, but the measuring instrument says they have a very high temperature… even if there is a similar mechanism of the body overheating the underlying aspects are different enough they should not be combined into a single wikipedia article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly there’s different clinical causes between hyperintensity appearing in gray matter versus white matter, but that’s not really relevant to what is essentially an article on an imaging term. Hyperintensity on an MRI scan is hyperintensity on an MRI scan no matter where it happens in terms of the kind of tissue it presents in. It seems to me you are confusing an imaging reading term used for diagnostic analysis with the pathophysiology of the diseases often associated with the imaging term. They are related but separate.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Italy. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as

-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy

-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)

-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service

-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute

We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep Although I would not be able to cite all the content I have added a couple of cites and should be able to find more if needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now added ^[1]

I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culturenet Cymru

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

Culturenet Cymru was established as a company within the National Library of Wales for the purpose of creating a body that Welsh Government could fund outside of the NLW sponsorship arrangement, with a remit to develop online resources. The company was based in NLW, all the directors and officers were NLW staff, and the employees were subject to NLW regulations. The arrangement was wound up in 2016 and all of the projects were transferred directly into NLW. It was never independently notable, generating a couple of news articles (that I cannot now find) only when one employee, whose contract was terminated, alleged he had fixed an online poll they ran. That coverage did not explore the nature of the company, and my recollection is that the news media were directed to NLW itself. As such this is not notable and does not meet WP:NCORP. I was going to redirect to the NLW page but it is not mentioned there, and I do not feel a mention of the company is due there. Thus a redirect is not possible (no mention on the target page). I am therefore nominating here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Companies, Popular culture, and Internet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, as I cannot find any significant coverage in independent sources. Redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes, its one notable project, where Culturenet Cymbru is briefly described (and is an article that has survived AfD). Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for information about this company on every search engine but found nothing. I don’t believe it is notable or meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46508394 JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Library of Wales per WP:ATD or keep for passing WP:SIGCOV. A basic WP:BEFORE search shows plenty of coverage in google books such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc This was a notable project and the content would be a reasonable subsection in the NLW article. I also see no issue with leaving it as a stand alone article. Either way, deletion or a redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes is not the answer as the organization was involved in multiple large digitization projects of note; some of which are the primary subject of journal articles viewable in this Google Scholar search. 4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV must be more than a mention. Indeed, Culturenet must meet WP:NORG as the appropriate SNG. The guidance on SIGCOV may be found under WP:ORGDEPTH which says, inter alia,
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Your references 2-6 are all passing mentions. "Culturenet's gathering the jewels" or a caption for an image, or "now available on..." are all passing mentions. None of these are SIGCOV by any margin, let alone ORGDEPTH. The first reference is longer. It has a paragraph about what CultureNet was remitted to do. It is not, to my mind, coverage at ORGDEPTH, but that one is moot in any case. The paragraph was written by CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales for the Welsh Affairs Committee Evidence, included in a section on the National Library. CyMAL was a division of Welsh Government, and Welsh Government sponsor NLW. CyMAL funded Culturenet's GTJ and other such projects. This, then, is a primary source and not independent. It is Welsh Government telling the Welsh Affairs committee about the work it is doing. To meet WP:NORG (or WP:GNG for that matter), multiple sources must have significant coverage, and be independent, reliable secondary sources. See WP:SIRS. None of these meet these criteria. Redirecting to 100 Welsh Heroes per Schazjmd would be more sensible as a WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage is trivial. There are multiple journal articles with the organization in the title of the article in google scholar. These in combination with the book sources (of which I just randomly listed the first books in the search; but there were pages of book hits) would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. The scope of the Culturenet Cymru makes 100 Welsh Heroes a bad merge target; although it would be ok as a redirect. Doing that however, would lose encyclopedic information of value which would be WP:DUEWEIGHT in the article on the National Library of Wales. Given your argument that company has essentially been folded into the NLW in your deletion nomination, the NLW is clearly the better target for both a merge and a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage is trivial. To take just one of these as an example, we read: "All-Wales examples include Culturenet Cymru's Gathering the Jewels (20,000-plus items) and the National Library's Digital Mirror (0.5m-plus items)..." (Osmond, 2006). Now compare that text to the relevant section of ORGDEPTH I quote above. This is not significant coverage. Not under GNG and certainly not under NORG. And they are all at this level. Maybe the problem here is that your "randomly listed" selection is where the BEFORE was not carried out. Why do you think I am unfamiliar with that literature? But where is the deep or significant coverage about Culturenet? Where is the coverage that extends well beyond brief mentions? The information from which an article can be written? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because cherry picking the weakest source of the bunch, and misrepresenting the quoted text in that source by taking it out of paragraph/section context is a balanced and fair way to do source analysis 🙄.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a (sometimes controversial) body funded by government, it should stay. Deb (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a company, not an assembly sponsored public body. It needs to pass WP:NORG. Do you have independent secondary sources about the controversy? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a government funded and run initiative, it was never a private institution/company. Read the sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. Please read the nom. statement again. It was constituted as a company.[10] It was specifically arranged so that it was not run by the Welsh Government, and although it got project funding from the Government, this was in the manner that other companies are awarded project funding and it was not a sponsorship arrangement. So again, WP:NORG is the SNG. What sources do we have that meet WP:ORGDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A company run and funded by the government. I think you are splitting hairs.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not run by the government. It was run by company employees under directorrship of employees of the National Library, which is itself not run by the government (although it has a Government remit letter). I am not splitting hairs. The whole point was to set it up as a company because it was not an arm of Government. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKILAWYERING as it relates to following the spirit of policies.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to unpack this for me. What exactly are you arguing for here? That this company should not be subjected to the need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources (WP:SIRS)? Why? because it was funded primarily through Government project funding? Note that WP:NORG says

This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise)...is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization.

The guidelines surely and evidently therefore apply to Culturenet Cymru PLC. It seems to me that if you are arguing (incorrectly in my view) that this was nothing but an arm of governemnt, it is even less notable. Its notability for a standalone page surely must derive from its separation from the National Library (whose staff were the company officers). It is either not notable because it was nothing but an arm of the library, or it may be notable as a standalone organisation - if it meets NORG. Which is it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that in this particular case, this specific company should be treated the way we would treat any government run and government funded program because in any way that essentially matters that's what this company was. It was created through government legislation, it was founded using tax payer dollars, and it was managed by a government institution. Trying to treat it like a normal for profit private business under WP:ORG policy doesn't seem to meet the spirit of our principals; particularly when the product being produced was for free public consumption within a national library. In otherwords, demanding WP:ORGCRIT here seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do treat all such organisations this way See NORG "Commercial or otherwise". Note that I have throughout said NORG and not NCORP. Profit is not the issue. The lack of sources about the organisation is the issue. It needs to meet ORGCRIT because that is the relevant SNG as it would be for, say, a Government funded school. And I don't think you have read what POINTY means. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments aren't helpful. WP:ORGCRIT was created as a means of critiquing the notability of for-profit business like Google or Microsoft or any other clearly for-profit business. It wasn't designed to handle weird cases like this which involve government managing bodies and products which are being created for free public consumption in a weird blend of public-private partnership. This company's goals better allign with the goals of a non-profit and the scrutiny we developed to support the WP:NOTPROMO model for-profit companies under WP:ORGCRIT are not appropriately applied in the context of an organization that was essentially created to do large scale digitization projects and research in the context of a national library that has free access to people in Wales. At some point WP:COMMONSENSE has to come into play and a consideration of the spirit of our policies at the WP:Five Pillars. You are welcome to keep pushing WP:ORGCRIT, but I think its WP:POINTY to do so per WP:5P5 and not beneficial to the project.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you have accused me of cherry picking, misrepresentation, wikilawyering, Ididnthearthat and pointiness (twice). It is clear you are not going to assume good faith. I'll leave it there with you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have done some of those things. Cherry picking (be honest you picked the worst source out of the ones listed to highlight), misrepresentation (you did take that one source out of context of the paragraph), wikilawyering (you are being pedantic on a particular policy that wasn't designed to handle a company of this kind), Ididnthearthat (you were ignoring what I was saying and repeating arguments after every editors comments that disagreed) and pointiness (you are trying to make a point with ORGCRIT after it was pointed out to why it doesn't fit well in this context). I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive, and that you are contributing with good intent and in the best way you know how. I do think you have lost perspective, and are not listening well to what other editors are saying.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing extensive coverage. A search in ["Culturenet Cymru" -wikipedia site:.bbc.com] yielded little. As well as 2 google news hits. and passing mentions in google books. Fails WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability in being government funded. This source and this found by 4meter is are 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV. and I can't find specific reference in this. This one is 2 lines of mention in a whole book. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar Would you support a merge to National Library of Wales per WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kolkata Metro stations#List of stations planned, proposed or under-construction. Per consent of the nominator as a non-controversial redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed and under-construction Kolkata metro stations

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

The matter in this article is present on List of Kolkata Metro stations#List of stations planned, proposed or under-construction so let's avoid duplication.‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, Lists, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Just do it. You don't have to ask before doing everything. It's obviously duplicative and unnecessary, so just do it and only if someone disagrees do you have to pull others in. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, this was bad advice. This article shouldn't be converted into a Redirect while this discussion is going on. I have reverted this action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, my only bad advice was forgetting to tell the nom to withdraw the nomination. WP:WDAFD allows the nominator to "change your mind" and "realise the nomination was a mistake." Because the page is obviously a WP:DUPLICATE (and the page should be redirected rather then deleted anyway to preserve the history), RIP B1058 should follow the first line of WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it," consistent with WP:BEFORE C4. There no requirement that there be an unnecessary discussion for 7 days. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once a discussion has been started, it should not be ignored. The choice is BOLD or discussion, not both. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why I've clarified myself to say the nominator can and should withdraw the nomination. Doing so does not forbid then being BOLD. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of Kolkata Metro stations#List of stations planned, proposed or under-construction. Close per WP:SNOW. I agree that there is no point in dragging this out. This is an entirely non-controversial redirect.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lonergan Institute

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

No refs on the page for many years. As an ATD it could be merged with Boston College but currently it is not mentioned on the target page and there's little indication as to the importance of a RD (in fact it appears that there is an institute with a very similar name at a different university so a RD could be confusing). JMWt (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Religion, and Massachusetts. JMWt (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Research centers at Boston College. Doesn't meet GNG, but the list seems like a reasonable target. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Research centers at Boston College.4meter4 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariló Montero

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

Non notable journalist and presenter, cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NPERSON and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Spanish Wikipedia article has 47 references. Left guide (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless someone can tell us they have evaluated the Spanish article and found that it can't offer enough WP:RS for en.wiki notability. I've added the "Expand from Spanish" tag to prompt hispanophones to help out. PamD 08:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide and @PamD, The sources are pretty terrible imho; They're mostly things like
She appears to be someone whos very outspoken and I would say there's perhaps some notability around this (example and example) and I would there's maybe some notability regarding her constant lapses of judgement (either controversial comments she makes or things she does) but I wouldn't say there's enough to meet either NPERSON or GNG.

Having just read her Spanish article it would seem she is notable for her controversial opinions, So maybe she is notable and I'm just not seeing it –Davey2010^Talk 15:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that the sourcing is not great if one were to look at any one source. What I do think it shows, is that she is reported on frequently and is a well known tv personality in Spain. The sheer number of sources in the Spanish wiki (along with what we can see in google books and google scholar), points to a certain kind of celebrity/fame that I think proves notable. Collectively, I think it passes WP:GNG/WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hardy

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable achivements, no significant coverage that I can find. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career based on 1 primary source. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Twell

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable achievements, only coverage I'm able to find is this which alone isn't enough to merit an article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Robinson (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Unreferenced as well. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rowley (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No achievements of note and as a consequence, nothing vaguely resembling sigcov. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Mathewson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage seems to be of one match where he defeated James Wade, no notable achievements beyond that. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Preston (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage I can find is passing mentions in coverage of local tournament results. No notable achievements. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Unreferenced as well. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Dyos

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage I can find is this, which is not enough to merit an article. No notable achievements. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Shattuck

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while losing candidates get articles only if they can establish that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or they can show credible reasons why their candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this makes no other notability claim at all besides an unsuccessful candidacy, and is referenced only to the bare minimum verification that he existed rather than anything that would make his candidacy permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doing a quick WP:BEFORE, Shattuck was indicted for election fraud after the 1914 election (which he lost), but died before trial. Not sure a six year mayor who failed to rig a congressional election is notable, but it is vaguely interesting and has some expansion potential. I'll add what I found to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was indicted, so there was probable cause of election fraud. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERP, a criminal accusation is not in and of itself enough to secure the permanent notability of a person who wasn't already notable for any preexisting reason prior to being charged with a crime. We would need to see verifiable evidence that he was convicted, not just indicted, and we would need to see a lot more detail about what the purported election fraud entailed, and evidence that it had a verifiable long-term impact on anything. (For instance, an election fraud conviction that had the effect of influencing major changes in election fraud law would have a stronger basis for notability than one that just disappeared into the ether afterward.) Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:PERP, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tanko

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT with independent and significant sources. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:FOOTYN, WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip Ka Yu

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

Played 892 minutes of football in the Hong Kong Premier League. (Played in the second league as well, not professional.) No notability as a football player, and no notability under the WP:PERP guideline either. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the 7-Zip article may be a suitable alternative to deletion - the subject of this article is mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pavlor that redirect to 7-zip is a good idea. ServiceAT (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Molecule Art

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

Absolutely no notability of this term is shown in the article; it mostly appears to be a gallery of a few drawings. A BEFORE search of the term was fruitless as it doesn't appear to be an actual recognised term and I'm just getting lots of results for art of molecules. Fails WP:GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, and Science. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It is not well known at all. It is very niche, my hope is to expand that niche and to make it more known.

Here are some sufficient links to examples of molecule art. If you would like me to include these as references and citations to strengthen the integrity of the article, do let me know.

Thank you

Links:

https://cen.acs.org/education/science-communication/Chemistry-Pictures-Painting-pigments/102/web/2024/08 (Pigment molecules)

https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Chemistry-Pictures-scent-ual-sketch/101/web/2023/01 (Scent molecules)

https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery (Proteins and simplified molecular mechanics)

https://www.treasuresofvidya.com/wallart/lsd-wall-art (Wall art with Lysergic Acid compounds)

https://www.tiktok.com/@uokram (Only does a form of molecule art)

https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Molecularts(Etsy account only sells molecule arts)

https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/image/CENODS/20220331lnp20-chembro?$responsive$&wid=700&qlt=90,0&resMode=sharp2 ("Chembroidery" image)

https://cen.acs.org/synthesis/biocatalysis/Chemistry-Pictures-Chembroidery/100/web/2022/03 (Chembroidery website)

https://www.etsy.com/listing/682490099/science-embroidery-kit-love-hormone (Chembroidery for sale)

https://cen.acs.org/materials/photonics/Chemistry-Pictures-Fluorescence-twist/99/web/2021/02 (Florescent molecule art)

https://cen.acs.org/synthesis/Chemistry-Pictures-Structure-refinement-fructo/97/web/2019/06(Fruit based molecule art) Cmspeedrunner (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Etsy and similar sites are not reliable sources; neither is TikTok. I'm also not seeing evidence of any use of the specific term "Molecule Art" on these sources, rather just examples of art that happens to use molecules in it, which certainly exists, but I don't believe is notable. CoconutOctopus talk 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Etsy and tiktok are not good wikipedia citation or reference sources, but in the conversation about being recognised as an art form, the evidence presented is sufficent. It is referred to as "[name of molecule] - art", "Molecularts", "Chembroidery" and "Molecule art" in a few already listed places as a generalisation. Would it not be useful to define an umbrella term?

What would this art be defined as?

List of art movements is a lengthy list with some entries being an increment different to others and having little established use. Cmspeedrunner (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmspeedrunner: Wikipedia is not designed as a place to write an article about everything that is "recognised as an art form," you must demonstrate notability. The article wasn't brought to this deletion discussion because the nominator said it was a hoax--then evidence that it at least exists would be much more useful, but that it has "absolutely no notability." JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated the notability above with the links. Coconut Octopus replied by saying it was invalid due to the lack of the term "Molecule Art", this does not demonstrate a lack of notability but a lack of a centralised definition, which this article is attempting to do. Cmspeedrunner (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmspeedrunner: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a place to "centralise[] [a] definition." To demonstrate notability, you must establish that your topic has significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, not just that something similar to what is described in the article exists. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. I’ve seen molecule art used in STEAM education, but I’m not sure if it’s catching on. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow draftification if the first major contributor wishes. Like Bearian says, this subject could become notable later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet to meet the notability guidelines as aforementioned. Perhaps could refer to WP:NMG. Pygos (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this "art movement" or "art form" does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A BEFORE search does not find any art historical or art critical coverage for this movement. A Google Books search finds zero hits, and a search of Oxford Art Online, The Concise Dictionary of Art Terms, Encyclopedia of Aesthetics and the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics show no results for "Molecule art". I noticed that all the images used in the article were uploaded as the article creator's "own" artwork and released as the copyright holder. If that is the case, then WP:NOTAWEBHOST might also apply. Netherzone (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E. Kumaril Swamy

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

Article is almost wholly unreferenced, affected by significant COI editing, and not at all neutral. I am unable to find evidence of WP:SIGCOV anywhere. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in to note that the article states that there are supposedly over a thousand articles about the subject, including over 70 interviews. Perhaps these could save the article if found? Haven't been able to find anything though. Jornmann32 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had the same experience when I went looking. The most good faith interpretation would be that these articles only exist in non-digitised archives, but in that case we would need the COI editor (who says he is the grandson of the subject) to get specific about citations for them. So far he's just been adding Pinterest links. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any sources online to verify any of the claims made in this article. Two of the three citations fail verification. The external links are not about E. Kumaril Swamy. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only can’t I verify key facts, I’ve found at least one piece of evidence of a hoax: the official India Post website has no definitive stamp on or by him. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page and with no possibility to verify any significant coverage on the subject and his career. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Doherty

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; only seems to have passing, three-sentence at most mentions in occasional articles. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NBIO and WP:GNG are not met. Effectively all of the coverage (in the article and that I can find) is of statements by the subject. Rather than about the subject. To the extent that the subject is mostly only mentioned in passing in the sources within the article. I also note that the WP:BLP bar (already a high bar) is even higher for articles about children. While this higher bar perhaps no longer applies, even a biographical article about an adult would require reliable/verifiable sources for the text about the subject's date-of-birth, role with ISSU, planned participation in a 2021 European Youth Parliament event, etc. There are no sources AT ALL for this text. Nor can I find any publicly available material about it. To the extent that I cannot fathom what the author was relying upon for these statements. (I also note that the author added several inline references in places where the sources do not mention the subject or otherwise support the text - suggesting that the author appears to have been relying on first-hand knowledge rather than what's actually in the sources...) Anyway, absent actual/verifiable/reliable/biographical sources (of which the subject is a primary topic), I cannot recommend anything other than deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joklo

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

No sources mention a "joklo" river as a tributary to the Langnyu, even the sources in the article only talk about the Choklo. My move of the article to that title was reverted (previous draftifications to get the article up to scratch didn't result in much either). The article should be at Choklo if it is to exist at all (none of the sources are really about the river but mention it), not at the unverifiable "Joklo".[11][12][13] Fram (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nagaland. Fram (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've noticed quite a few of this users articles not really being ready for the mainspace - I draftified one earlier today only for it to be immediately recreated with none of the issues fixed. Regardless, this article in particular is a single sentence stub about a river that, reading the sources, isn't notable or called what the article says it is. CoconutOctopus talk 17:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amie Jo Bishop

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

Came across this because of its use of paid/vanity coverage in the Bru Times News. Apart from that source, the article has two reviews in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Although I take these reviews somewhat seriously, I think that reviews in one publication falls short of WP:NCREATIVE and/or WP:NMUSIC. There is also an interview in a source of uncertain reliability, and several citations to the discography of the subject. It looks WP:TOOSOON to me at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arkansas. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MUSICBIO requires evidence of touring nationwide; two local articles from Arkansas is insufficient for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Valencian Community motorcycle Grand Prix

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

Fails WP:GNG. An event being cancelled doesn't reach the level of notability to have an entire article. This could be a note added to another article about the event cancellation. Demt1298 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Demt1298 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several news articles that support the claim of a Valencian GP before it was being cancelled. Otherwise, redirect back to 2024 MotoGP World Championship. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Solidarity motorcycle Grand Prix (the event replacing the nominated article) once it's created. MSportWiki (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Solidarity motorcycle Grand Prix – As argued by MSportWiki. I think we can all agree that it's a viable search term despite not being notable enough for a standalone article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, People and Women. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Internet, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG with multiple references focusing on her:

These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.

None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g 🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g 🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that those opting for redirect are really failing to see the huge differences between this AFD and the previous one in July.

1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).

2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.

3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).

In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poorly-written article about a person whose accomplishments I find unimpressive. Sources obviously pass GNG. Is there a BLP issue, or some other urgent concern that makes GNG unsuitable here? Or is it just a politics thing? jp×g 🗯️ 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not seeing any sources that are notable outside of Donald Trump, until she becomes notable by herself I can't vote keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [14] [15] [16] [17], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.

But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.

Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g 🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:

The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.

For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.

For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[18]] and [[19]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Big Matches

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

Don't need separate seaon articles for this schools cricket tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also ominating an article for a match played as part of this season:

Delete both. Both fail GNG. Information can be hosted in Big match, and Battle of the Babes articles. Chanaka L (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. We don't cover school's cricket unless very historic, and even then we do not cover seasons. AA (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to separate each edition. -- IDB.S (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Farkaš

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

Farkaš played a total of 925 minutes before disappearing in 2013. The only secondary source I found is SME, a transfer announcement. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of crowdfunding services

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

This is not a comparison article. A ton of bricks 12:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 13 November 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 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Crowdfunding, the two articles seem to overlap very heavily and occupy exactly the same encyclopedic niche. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. We are not a hot-to guide or consumer product website. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested.Orenburg1 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rupandehi Challengers

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

Don't need separate team articles for team that competed in 1 or 2 editions of the Dhangadhi Premier League, as they don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following other DPL team article:

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkh Legends

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

Non-notable teams all who played for one season of the Afghanistan Premier League. Don't need separate team articles that do not pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Afghanistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related teams from the same tournament:

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Reis

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

Not yet notable as a musician, filmmaker or writer. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Portuguese turned up very little coverage in reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs and passing mentions in secondary sources. Some of Reis' family are apparently notable, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and Portugal. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am submitting a request to retain the Wikipedia page for Ana Reis, as her work has significant cultural, artistic, and historical relevance that justifies her inclusion in Wikipedia. Ana Reis is a notable artist with unique contributions to the art world. Although there may be limited online information readily available about her, this should not detract from her established importance.

The scarcity of online references does not accurately reflect her accomplishments but rather relates to documented personal circumstances, which may have contributed to her underrepresentation in digital sources. (Redacted) These elements, though private, have affected the availability of Ana’s contributions and thus hindered the broader recognition she rightfully deserves.

Despite these challenges, Ana Reis’s contributions to the art community have resonated deeply with her peers, and her work has been recognized in several exhibitions, publications, and private collections. Her notability is rooted in her artistic achievements and the influence her work has had on contemporary art. I respectfully ask that these factors be taken into account when reviewing her page for retention.

Thank you for considering the broader context surrounding Ana Reis’s significance. Her page serves as a vital source for those interested in learning more about her unique contributions to art and culture. Sanguedereis (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, but we need sourcing in reliable, neutral sources. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beside online sources what else is needed? Fellow artists can provide statements and testimonies as well as links to existing works can be provided. Where can these be sent or uploaded to? And is there any deadline for this?

Additionally please be aware person in question is under ongoing and systematic attacks, (Redacted). There are plenty of bona fide artists with scarce sources deemed not too reliable, and it's not positive either for person in question, to request further silencing and invisibility. That is in a way or another enabling and endorsing the abuse against them. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be accusatory but this text reads to me like it was generated from a large language model. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That text is written manually in own words. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A book "awaiting publication" is not notable, this appears to be PROMO. There are hardly any sources to be found about this person when I look. Sourcing in the article isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree on PROMO. No substance, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case concerning Ana Reis's recognition isn’t due to any lack of relevance or a genuine artistic dimension but rather to complex life circumstances that have severely limited her access to fair opportunities and visibility. her background is marked by high-profile abusive influences and substantial evidences are available to prove that. She faced systemic obstacles that have stifled her career in ways that very few people experience. However, being very active from 2000 until 2026, both her network and collaborations show an artist with a substantial history of work,, including mention by utmostly respected musicologist who has noted her contributions. However, these connections haven’t shielded her from isolation and undue obscurity.

Due to aforementioned undue influences, she worked alone, with no fundings or grants, no publicity, no 'promos' whatsoever as someone mentioned above, no producers, no promotion machines. Over the years she struggled immensely to have valid and thorough media coverage for her work that deserves deeper considerations and study in its inner world of imagination and symbolism. Equally, aforementioned undue influence/s have occupied most her life keeping her, much against her will, away from her own professional and creative activities, under severe devaluation and micromanagement. This caused her to over the years lose reliable social networks, professional support, and public exposure. Her work and impact became underrepresented, often leaving her vulnerable to having her career and reputation questioned or undervalued, which cause rightful feeling of demoralization and injustice.

The controversial situations she has been denouncing touch a subject taboo, the cruelty of narcissistic mothers towards their daughters, who often become invisible and unheard under a stifling, toxic parent who wants all the spotlight and the daughter is left 'inexistant'. And that is also why it is so important to recognize her contributions and unique originality of her work, rather than allow further erasure. Evidences of her past collaborations and testimonials from many fellow artists over the years, are being requested and underway, as this may greatly help to an accurate acknowledgment of her creative works. Ana is worthy of a fair chance to be seen for her artistic contributions rather than being made invisible. What some have said in the remote past that 'the press ignored them' is on Wiki too and taken as fact, but that's an affirmation of absolute falsehood and doesn't correspond at all to real facts (Redacted), and it's thoroughly disappointing when a privileged person presents false complaints but does exactly the same they complain about, to who they should never sabotage the light they receive. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Some comments in this discussion have been redacted as breaches of WP:BLP. Please do not post contentious but unsourced material about living persons. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I've nothing to add to the well worded rationale. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As always, we are guided by what is out there in reliable sources, and this falls far short. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Akpobome

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. She has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of her. All of the sources cited in the article are interviews she granted to newspaper outlets. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG here. Sources are not providing the substantial coverage that we need for a subject to qualify for a standalone page. There is also no inherent notability as the director of Heritage Bank. I am not opposed to redirecting to that target. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am, funnily enough, opposed to a redirect. Fails WP:GNG signally, the article is typical promo/UPE, IMHO, and deletion is the best course. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I’m not even sure her husband is notable. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. I don't think he is either. I will definitely look at the article about him and review the sources available online. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present and in a search for more does not meet the general notability criteria and there are no other criterias to warrant an inclusion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Singh

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, I disagree. Based on this alone, we have an elected politician passing WP:NPOL and a pass the popcorn moment, to boot. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my mistake, someone completely changed this article which was earlier about a minister of Bihar. Even I have edited it before. See current version, I have restored the orginal version. The version I nominated for delition was about a non notable politician of the same name. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense to rewrite the article to be about the elected politician??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, we need to get present one deleted. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was about an elected representative and minister in Government of Bihar, Santosh Kumar Singh means this person File:Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with minister Santosh Kumar Singh (cropped).jpg. However, a new user changed it to current version and made it an article about a non notable politician of the same name, File:Son of Shri Prem Shankar Singh.jpg this person is an officeholder of a small regional political party and not elected to any constitutional post, even a local body. Therefore, I nominated it for delition.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - The article was hijacked and turned into a biography of a non notable individual. Clearly passes WP:NPOL and @Adamantine123: should at least check the revision history before nominating, these nominations are a waste of time for the community. Dympies (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz has reverted it into non notable version. It was me who added the picture of Santosh Singh the labour minister, which helped me to identify later that it was highjacked. You should also mention that it is not notable in present form. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misrepresent Liz's edit here, she only reverted your disruptive revert which removed the afd template while the discussion was still going on. As per the latest revision the subject is clearly notable having been elected to a legislative body [20]. Dympies (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel Hill, Indiana

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

A rail point with nothing there. Searching turns up nothing except that it was a rail shipping point. Baker calls it a village but I've grown dubious about that; undortunately there doesn't seem to be a county history. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cursory Google News search pulls up one hit. Before the paywall snapped up, I could see that "Gravel Hill" appeared on a vertical list of place names. I'm very comfortable deleting this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamas International School

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

This article about a school has been tagged as unreferenced since 2019. I have carried out WP:BEFORE but cannot find independent, reliable references to add to the article. I do not think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:NCORP. The school was established in 2004 so it may be WP:TOOSOON for notability to be established. No obvious redirect target - the one for the locality is a stub. Tacyarg (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Tacyarg (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As per their website the school is affiliated with Indian Certificate of Secondary Education and Cambridge International Education. Maybe a redirect to one of these will be better per WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 15:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not even a single reference.--Indian Agent (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. WP:PROMO. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Indjejikian

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editors stating that they are the subject. The nomination rationales given are "this article is about me and was published and edited without my consent and I would like it removed", "article about me without my consent, non controversial to delete", & "this page is about me and I am uncomfortable with it being posted. Deletion should be non controversial." [No personal opinion offered at this time.] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Professor Indjejikian has confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep. The subject is not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), at least not to my eyes, comparing his publication record to other economists at https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.hindex.html. and seeing no awards/editorships/named professorships. I must have been blind, because the subject clearly holds a named professorship as mentioned below. ~~I don't see any book reviews for Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. either. But I think the deletion should be without predjudice - if the subject is deemed notable in the future, bring the page back.~~ Qflib (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is being the Robert L. Dixon Collegiate Professor of Accounting not a named professorship? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Let me look more carefully. Qflib (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, it definitely counts. I'm so embarrassed. Changing my vote to keep. See https://michiganross.umich.edu/faculty-research/faculty-excellence/named-professorships . Qflib (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There are thousands of named professorships across the country, at every University. A named professorship does not mean they are notable- just that a donor liked their research or teaching. A named professorship is not a reason to determine someone as notable. 2603:6080:A201:34CE:B04D:2FF2:54C4:1C39 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, it is. Please read the criteria at [WP:NPROF]]. Qflib (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This person has 3900 citations per Gscholar and seems to have done development work in models/theories in accounting... I'm not sure if that is a large or small number of citations for their field of work. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source I mentioned above, he's not even in the top thousand economists in terms of his h-index, which is 24. Qflib (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a number of highly cited research papers dating to the 1990s, before the post-internet citation inflation: 734, 425, 408, with three further >=200 (all but one of these dates to the 1990s), and a total of thirteen papers with >=100 citations in GS.[21] Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think he's doing good work, but is that enough for C1 of NPROF? He's no Michael C. Jensen. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the comment above and the comment below my query above, this individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I'm saying tentative because I recognize the h-index concerns, and might change my mind on that basis. But I'm saying keep for now, first, because WP:PROF does indeed presume notability for full professors with named chairs, and second, because I don't really understand why the IP editor/page subject is saying that they want to have the page deleted. Normally, we do not allow page subjects to dictate our content unless unless there is something that violates the WP:BLP policy. In this case, the page appears to be entirely a positive reflection on the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Delete. I am basing this on the confirmation that the actual page subject really does want deletion, as well as on the fact that notability under the SNG is not a slam-dunk. Although the subject has a named chair, I think that the impact of his scholarly work is sufficiently borderline, given for example the h-index, that he is at best borderline-notable, and in such an instance, I don't want to insist on keeping the page against his wishes. (And even if notability means that we can keep the page, it doesn't mean that we must keep the page.) I think that the BLP-related concerns of a requested delete should outweigh the encyclopedic value of covering someone of only borderline interest to readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to need better evidence than IP editors geolocating to a completely different part of the US to treat this as a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In any case, that sort of request should only tilt the balance when we cannot come to a consensus on whether the subject meets our notability criteria. In this case, with a named chair at a major university, he unambiguously passes WP:PROF#C5, and I think his citation record [22] is also good enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein Prof. Indjejikian has now confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the rest of my comment stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE even though subject probably passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even if NPROF is met, his notability is too borderline to overcome his request. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is a collegiate professor, a type of professorship focussed on teaching, not research. C5 does not apply. Nor does the subject qualify as notable under any other part of WP:PROF. There is simply not the impact or notability within the field that is required to establish an academic as notable. Nothing said above, including the count of his online and offline citations, has proven notability. As has now been verified, the subject is also requesting deletion. arcticocean ■ 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halflife (Michalowski novel)

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

No sources cited since the articles creation in 2006 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eighth Doctor Adventures as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EDAs, no non-fan sources anywhere. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. There's just no coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as reliable. The sheer volume of works that come out each year with the Doctor Who tie-in stories makes it very difficult for outlets to cover individual novels and stories. While that makes it awesome for fans (I'd love to see the Alien franchise put out more novels and stories like that, please!), it does mean that the stories and novels are unlikely to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth & Nail Records discography

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

I don't believe it passes WP:LSC WP:NLIST., because this is essentially a product "catalog" of a record label, which is a publisher. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Lists. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Record label discography lists are useful and common. Since the label itself is notable, I'd argue the set of releases is notable. Since it is too large to roll into the main article, it makes sense to retain as a standalone list. glman (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdrawing my hasty thoughts for more reflection. glman (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Restoring my original opinion. glman (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discographical information is encyclopedic and necessary for robust coverage of bands and labels. This is, unquestionably, a notable record label. The size of the list does mean it makes sense to have as a standalone article, though a merge is also an option. Chubbles (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a refresher on a relevant discussion from the past Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_59#WP:NOTDIRECTORY,_NOTWEBHOST_for_companies_and_bios which didn't find consensus on exhaustive product catalog for publishers. So, simply splitting off as "product catalog of a publisher" standalone seems like getting around the loophole.*:Graywalls (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of "product catalogs of publishers" are routinely notable if the "product" is art. We have, and certainly should have, (attempts at) full catalog lists of publishers like Warner Bros., Pixar, Square, and Motown. If the label is notable, we should cover its artistic output encyclopedically, and that includes discographical information. Chubbles (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to guidelines, or discussions corroborating this, thank you. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have never had debates about whether a Pixar movie or Final Fantasy game is a "product". Of course it is a product, but of course that is besides the point. Covering them here in the encyclopedia is covering art history. So, too, is covering Christian rock and emo and metalcore released by an impactful, significant, influential label. Chubbles (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lists such as these are useful for sure. However, they must still meet WP:NLIST by having significant coverage that discusses the discography as a group. Are these sources available? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we allow things on basis of one person saying "useful" there will be someone saying anything is useful. We'll end up with a "list of Signature Select condiments" and end up with an exhaustive list of their products with Safeway.com as the reference, or the "items sold at Home Depot" and end up with exhaustive list of SKUs. Some hole in the wall record labels are not held sacred over else and I think we shouldn't have product catalogs of this nature. This is going to cause a trend of starting a stand alone list for unacceptable contents to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear difference between a list of "condiments" or "items sold at Home Depot" and of albums. A discography of a record label that has existed for over 30 years, has major distribution deals, and has signed many notable artists is objectively not the same as a list of UPC items at the grocery store, nor is it the same as a minor indie label listing their releases. glman (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: well none of the ke.p proponents have commented with or added refs. Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I cannot find anything talking about the list as a group so left a vote. For the record, I do not advocate for keeping lists because of "userfulness." That is why we have categories, navigational boxes, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of usefulness, lists must meet WP:NLIST where references need to detail the list as a group, not just the individual entries on the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See below, multiple reliable sources discuss Tooth & Nail's output as a set. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally for publishers that do not have significant roles in the creation of creative works outside of funding, distribution and promotion, a catalog of their works is overkill, unless there is decent sourcing that discuss the whole of the catalog in a significant fashion. Eg we would never list every book published by Penguin, but we may do it for a smaller publisher that gained a reputation for promoting offbeat works. It is more appropriate to lists artists represented by the label even if the artist didn't exclusively release through thst label. Masem (t) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree that this should be the standard for the inclusion of a discography, but I'd argue that Tooth & Nail, in fact, meets it. The label had a specific vision for the kind of music and culture it was trying to promulgate, and there are identifiable production styles common to similar-genre bands who recorded for it. This article provides a starting point for understanding the label's profound impact on its milieu; many book-length resources on Christian rock and/or emo and metalcore music published after the late 2000s also inevitably come around to discussing the label in some detail. Chubbles (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are multiple sources discussing the impact of this label and noting amount of albums put out. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources discuss the impact and output of Tooth and Nail's discography. Here's three, and this wasn't an exahustive search: [23], [24], [25]. Thus, the output of Tooth and Nail is independently notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More examples: [26], [27]"Tooth and Nail Records has a long and storied history in that scene, and if they had a Top Five Albums Produced listicle, I’d easily put The Everglow on there.", [28] 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all from the same media outlet, but are yet more examples: [29], [30], [31], [32]

A standalone article could be written about the output of Tooth & Nail, so it definitely makes sense to have a list of their releases. Could cap it at releases which are notable with Wikipedia articles. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per glman and Chubbles. I believe this list passes WP:NLIST since the subject record label is notable. In any case, most of the entries on the list are notable, and there are very few with red links.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since the subject label is notable is not relevant, per WP:INHERITORG. Also see: WP:PRODUCT Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic - releases by the label - is also noteable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one songs of 2010 (Turkey)

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

Unprodded a couple of months ago as “appropriate content fork of a seemingly notable chart” but has still not been cited. As the article does not exist in Turkish Wikipedia it seems unlikely to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) this is part of a series of articles (in various countries; deleting one page in particular (as has been done after unilateral draftifications of other years) is absurd and borders disruption). 2) OK, I'll source it. But.....the person who DePRoDed this was right imv. Why, just because it is unsourced, take this particular year to deletion? The fact that this does not exist on Turkish WP is not an issue. Also please remember WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Mushy Yank (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank OK I did not know that NLIST said that about lists. So does that mean the “unsourced” tag should be removed from this article and similar ones such as List of number-one hits of 2006 (Turkey), 2007, 2009? If so what about the other uncited lists on https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources ?Chidgk1 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that NLIST indicates in the following sentence that, still, presenting sources is more than recommended! In general, the unsourced tag should not be removed until sources are added but the notability of such lists that are part of a set is not an issue, I would say. That list you link is very long and in theory, again, sources should be added but one can only decide whether the page seems notable without sources present on a case by case approach. I'll add sources to the 3 pages you listed but one person cannot source all unsourced pages even if that is only Turkey-related articles. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in fact, yes, the Unsourced tag should have been removed because there was a source in the EL of all 4 articles, with a link indicating "previous number ones may be found via archive.org". And the template's doc indicates: "You should only add this template to articles that contain no citations or references of any kind." Which was not the case. ImproveRef or RefExist or any other tag would have been OK. The Unsourced tag, as well as the notability tag, indicate extremely serious issues and should not be used lightly if easy means of verification and available sources exist. Thanks. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Golovanov

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

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Russia. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather common name that comes up with many individuals, none appear to be a religious figure... Article now is sourced to primary sources. I don't see notability, this appears rather to be a CV. Lack of sourcing and unclear notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: SOAP. This entire page is about how the Pope refused to promote him to bishop, exarch, or Monsignor. He’s exactly the sort of careerist that Pope Francis preaches against. We’re not here take sides in religious matters. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirantara Ganesh

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

I don’t see significant coverage of the subject in the cited sources and those I searched; hence, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the subject is not an elected MLA or MP and therefore fails to meet WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Politicians, and Karnataka. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't have too much editing knowledge or anything. But I came across this article. This guy is a very famous social worker. Damn famous. I'm not sure whether this has to stay. But he's every famous. Wholeddadawgsout (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wholeddadawgsout: Being Damn famous does not inherently make a person notable per our guidelines. Please read WP:NOTABILITY. GrabUp - Talk 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. However, I’d like to clarify a few points. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable and independent mainstream sources. These sources discuss the subject in depth, not just passing mentions.

Additionally, while the subject is not an MLA or MP, notability on Wikipedia isn’t limited to holding public office. The article doesn’t contain any promotional content or unverifiable claims; it simply presents factual information based on reliable sources.

I believe the page meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and provides valuable information. I’d appreciate reconsidering the deletion Anandrajkumar0000 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anandrajkumar0000: Please provide those significant coverages here so others can evaluate them. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:MILL - every three weeks, I served two 12- hour shifts as an EMT and also ran for village trustee, in beautiful New Paltz, New York. That doesn’t make me notable, and neither is this doctor/political party jumper/ social worker / damn famous guy notable. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Blazer (album)

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

One of many uncited Turkish albums which I mentioned to the albums project last month this one was tagged uncited 15 years ago. I searched but there are others with the same name. Unfortunately the Turkey project is only semi-active but hopefully someone from the metal project will know better than me if it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was not able to find material in reliable music magazines, searching for both their band names. I think I could be able to write up one of their later albums, but not this one. I did get hits in Google Books. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Güngören M.Yahya Baş Stadium

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

Was tagged 15 years ago as uncited. Although the Turkish article has a few cites I don’t see what makes this small stadium notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to İstanbul Güngörenspor as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anadolu Efes S.K. past rosters

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

Article was tagged uncited 4 years ago and does not exist in Turkish. As the main article includes info such as notable players perhaps this uncited article does not have any notable info which is not already in the main article. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could see a list of players, if sourced, but rosters of each individual year is not a thing I think we do. Some have been up for AFD previously. Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C. past rosters was kept in 2008, whereas C.D. Primeiro de Agosto past squads was deleted in 2015. I think that's telling of how the demands in deletion discussions have evolved. Geschichte (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaita-de-fole coimbrã

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

Completely unsourced article, and I cannot find any good sources on the instrument. All I can find are youtube videos, some facebook posts, a few forum posts, and one website called "folkworld.eu" (link:http://www.folkworld.eu/68/e/wkpf.html). Gaismagorm (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acıbadem Üniversitesi S.K.

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

Although there are 9 sources on the Turkish article some are trivial and others no longer exist. So I doubt this team is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bahçeşehir Koleji S.K.. Per this source: Team names: Acibadem Universitesi Istanbul (-2016), Bahcesehir (2017-). Geschichte (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums

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

1) As far as I can tell, we don't have any other article that is about "List of paintings of x origin being held in museums in y country". This feels like WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and it's really not notable that Western European paintings specifically are held in Ukraine when Western European paintings are held in museums around the world and when Ukrainian museums have collections of paintings from around the world.

2) Most of the history discussed in the article is not about Western European art in Ukraine specifically, but about the history of artworks in Ukraine in general (several mentions of art museums with Oriental art). This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't justify the existence of an article dedicated specifically to Western European art in Ukraine.

3) The article has been marked as completely lacking sources for 15 years, probably because there is a lack of sources dedicated to the topic of "which Western European paintings are held in Ukraine" (only one I could find was a book published in 1981, but the information in that list is almost certainly out of date after 40 years).

Previous deletion discussion was closed as no consensus.

Jaguarnik (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ukraine, Visual arts, and Lists. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to agree with the nom, this isn't really helpful when Western European art is held around the world. I really don't see notability for most of the museums, they aren't that well-known. We're not listing paintings in the Louvre or the MoMA, that are world-famous. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the list part of this article is unhelpful. National museums house stuff from across the entire globe, it's what they do, and which museums house what isn't really encyclopedia material. Where there's a particular documented controversy about a country's culture being housed in another country's museums (Elgin marbles is an extreme individual case) then we can have an article, but I don't think there's any special controversy about the fact there are Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums. So I agree to this extent: the list could be deleted. But the introductory material to the list, about the history of museums, galleries, and art-works is actually quite encyclopedic and interesting. Could the article be trimmed of its "list" material and status, and moved to a more appropriate title? Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CROSSCAT. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Shipping Publications

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

Fails Notability requirements for an organization as it lacks any good reliable coverage (See Wikipedia:Notability (Organisations and companies)) and the only sources in the article are from the website of the company itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no chance that this meets the WP:CORP requirements. We've established previously that reviews of books don't count towards notability for small-press publishers so I'm not seeing much of a route for keeping here. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits which is unusual for an entity in the UK. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Harvey (actor)

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

Delete – The article never seems to have been referenced properly since its creation. My WP:BEFORE searches turned up no significant coverage in decent sources apart from passing mentions of the characters played. I therefore suggest that the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has significant roles in The Sulllivans, E Street and The Young Doctors, 3 notable productions; therefore meets WP:NACTOR. Adding sources to page. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is judged insufficient and his role in The Sullivans is judged his best-know role, could be redirected to The Sullivans#Characters (mentioned there; but mentioned in the pages about the other 3 series). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the career of the subject. No notable significant roles played by the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no significant coverage on the career of the subject is not accurate. Opening the first source on the page allows to verify it; No notable significant roles played by the subject seems also inaccurate, considering he had more than two hundreds of episodes in the Sullivans and his role seems "notable" enough [note that the guideline does not say notable, which would make the roles/characters article-worthy, but significant] not to mention almost 100 in E Street (see article), and 70 or more in the Young Doctors), all of them being quite notable Australian series, but being only a part of his career.-Mushy Yank. 01:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 01:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis. After evaluating "significant changes", source 1 is not independent and has some coverage on the role the subject played but not noteworthy. Source 2 is just passing mention, Source 3 and 5 are just entries and sources 4 is an unreliable personal tribute site created by glittergalwebs. RangersRus (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not noteworthy" is a very personal and highly debatable appraisal. Also, I would like to note that the quotation marks to mention the significant changes are unnecessarily disdainful. Whatever one thinks of them, they are changes made to the page and not minor. So " ": no, thank you.-Mushy Yank. 03:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Suharto

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

Already in the main article of Suharto features the all the awards and honors that is featured in this separate article of the list of awards and honors he received. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. He was the grand Poobah and dictator of his country, so of course he was going to get every single medal awarded by his country, and even a few from his friends and supporters. This list borders on Propaganda and hagiography. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was the President of Indonesia, and every Indonesian president is automatically awarded the highest class of all medals and decorations. Therefore, listing all of his national medals seems unnecessary. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to have been reached, for an article that has doubled in size. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reeshma Nanaiah

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources in article, and all sources found during BEFORE, are either passing mentions or interviews. Subject doesn't meet either NACTOR or GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 3 significant roles in notable productions (as even the coverage cited on the page allows to verify very reasonably) have her pass WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. (The assertion by the nominator that she does not meet the requirements of that specific guideline does not seem to be accurate). Mushy Yank (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEYMANN. Baffled by the nomination. A well known actress in Kannada's article is being nominated for deletion simply since it wasn't well written? @Mushy Yank: Thanks for your work. Found an additional source in Kannada: [33]. DareshMohan (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Ek Love Ya, Raana, Baanadariyalli, UI and KD – The Devil. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poll Bludger

AfDs for this article:

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

As the publisher of the site covered by this page, I would like to reactivate an earlier discussion concerning its potential deletion. I support this idea and the suggestion of absorbing its subject matter into a more general page about Australian political blogging. William Bowe (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi William. Have you declared your potential WP:COI on the article Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have now (I think). William Bowe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIODELETE. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments of original nom. J2m5 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Economics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Subject holds a named chair at a major university, passing NPROF C5. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If consensus is that this named chair passes NPROF#C5, keep. However, I'm not fully convinced this chair at WSU passes. Specifically, Gramlich is the only person to have held this chair per the WSU Hoops Institute website. Personally, I'd lean towards delete unless other NPROF criteria (e.g. evidence of impact in the academic field) are shown in some capacity. Cyanochic (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The named chair part of PROF has been a bit muddied by the creation of a legion of, shall we say, second-tier named chairs, some of which I don't feel qualified to assess for prestige. Not my field but the GS profile is fairly healthy, with top citations 316, 204, 159, 148, 131 and a further two >100 (all fairly sparsely authored), but the h-index is only 17. Perhaps someone who knows more about citations in this field, and about chairs in the US, could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E North

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

I see little sign of GNG or other notability. Note that I removed some text for copyvio and naked promotion, including the source [34]. (But this looks to me like a vanity piece, along the lines of Who's Who.) Noting that the tribunenewspaper.com source appears to be in a fake newspaper, or at least the main page is showing something generic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He’s a run of the mill plaintiff’s attorney. The “awards” he’s been given are not competitive. He has no record of law review/ journal, nor service to any bar association. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Bearian. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turpachita

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

There is no such village in Kyrgyzstan. Most likely, they meant a mountain pass Турпачаты. Mitte27 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kyrgyzstan. Mitte27 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Osh Region. Article cites no sources. Available sources on the internet do not seem to establish notability and therefore fails WP:GNG TNM101 (chat) 11:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be more correct to redirect to the article Pamir-Alay. Mitte27 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at OpenStreetMap shows a hamlet with the name турпачаты, though it's not very large and I can't otherwise confirm it. GNG also isn't the guideline for villages - we just need to prove they exist, which will be hard in this instance. SportingFlyer T·C 07:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Maze

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this game or any indication that it could be notable. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created in 2008, it had just one source since then and currently has nothing to pass notability per Google search results indication. This game fails WP:NGAME. Mekomo (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be an article on roll-and-moves and spin-and-move games including their history. This probably would get a mention. But I'm not seeing anything close to WP:N being met here. Hobit (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha McCarthy

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

~~Delete~~ Redirect as 4meter4 has suggested – The subject’s principal claim to notability from the external links in the article and my WP:BEFORE searches seems to be nine months, c. 70 episodes, as a relatively minor character on a UK soap opera, plus other one-off appearances. None of those are supported by decent secondary sources, so I suggest that the subject meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC. I also note that the article seems to have been almost perpetually unsourced. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no proof of all the series she starred in Google search result and the two sources in the article are from IMDb and one other website that I do not know its purpose. This actress fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of former Emmerdale characters per WP:ATD. She has only had one notable role, and the role is cover at that article. WP:NACTRESS requires a subject have multiple notable parts, and that hasn’t been demonstrated. Also, fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per above, only one notable role. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Paulsen

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Created in 2006 and has never had a single source. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged for notability since 2012, there are Kai Paulsens out there, but no Norwegian journalist, photographer, and computer collector Kai Paulsens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this photojournalist per lack of sources since 2012. There are a number of similar names that come in Google search results but not this very subject. Narrowed the search with his photojournalism career but still not good came up for him. He fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tehace

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

Tagged for notability for 12 years. Fails WP:NBAND. I could not find any reviews of their work in reliable sources (I searched for the band and album names, first in conjunction with review then with recenzja.) Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most likely looking coverage here, the Winter Crusade Tour 2002 review from rockmetal.pl notes the band was brought on as a last minute substitution and that's pretty much all there is there. Everything else is passing mention or promo. Out there in the big bad world there's blogs, Facebooks, Bandcamp. So, yes, fails GNG, BAND. They do make some very interesting noises, I have to note... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Stahl

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

Article is unsourced with the only external links leading to database-type webpages (WP:NOTDATABASE), only notability appears to be as a relation to the Schumacher family and not his own sporting achievements (therefore failing WP:NMOTORSPORT). MSportWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Germany, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage out there is of him not taking a doomed flight and every headline (I say 'every', there are like 2), is "Michael Schumacher's stepbrother flew on doomed Germanwings flight one day before crash". Altogether now, 'notability is not inherited' and there's absolutely no SIGCOV of him in his own right, thereby failing WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why has the article average daily page views of over 300 (that's over 100 000 page views in the last 365 days) and why is the article available in 10 languages? That has to come from somewhere so maybe there's coverage we don't see? Currently I tend to vote delete but not with these questions in mind. Killarnee (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Killarnee: It's likely because he's a relative of Michael Schumacher, a high-profile racing driver. Looking through those other languages, the majority are completely unsourced - the Spanish article has the most sources, but it links the same routine database three times. MSportWiki (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While that sounds plausible, I still find it strange that it’s possible to achieve such a resonance solely based on kinship. At least there’s no indication that anything new will emerge, as Stahl appears to have already been inactive for a long time. Killarnee (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 09:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal Music Awards

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

This article was created in 2009 by an WP:SPA, and has been unreferenced for c. 15 years. I have tried numerous searches to verify this award exists, but have been unable to find any sources via google, news searches, and also TWL searches including via Ebsco and ProQuest. No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Senegal. ResonantDis_tortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And delete it from Category:African music awards while we're at it. I never realised that SENMA was a brand of high-grade monofilament fishing line, but we all live and learn. The Awards garner no SIGCOV beyond the odd announcement that someone has won one. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure if such award truly exists or existed at any time because Google search did not produce any result to even show that this award ever exists. Search result only presented other awards events held in Senegal but not this very one. Failed WP:NAWARDS. Mekomo (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stephen CuUnjieng

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

This was a pending "draft" in articlespace. The sources in the article are of low-quality, and the WP:BEFORE search was questionable at best. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Philippines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. However, it is recommended to enhance the content by incorporating additional reliable sources, which are available online and can be appropriately cited to improve the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I wanted to draftify is that I couldn't find any reliable sources, and unfortunately, in my experience, without draftification, the article gets abandoned. The draft might get abandoned as well, but can be G13-deleted (basically, a "soft delete" where someone can get the draft "refunded" or bought back). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The articles a whole NOTCV mess, but as of the 7th of this month, he hosts a TV show on Philippine TV (ABS/CBN). It's arguably WP:TOOSOON and also arguable that one weekly business show anchoring gig is not the stuff of notability. Borderline, but I'm still not sure there's enough here to keep. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mithu Aur Aapa

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

No significant coverage. Only reliable source on the page is DAWN and that is a simple mention. Nothing I can find online other than some social media and unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum_TV#Comedy_and_sitcoms: notable cast, verifiable content; Dawn mention; so suggesting this ATD instead of deletion (to which I am opposed). Mushy Yank (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being opposed to deletion, are you voting keep with a redirect as an ATD?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am !voting Redirect (bolded word). And am opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw that part about being opposed to deletion so I was wondering if it was a keep or redirect. Thanks for the clarification this is a redirect !vote, not a keep vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should have multiple sources instead of just one to establish notability. Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aired in 2015, therefore it can be difficult to find reference coverage pertaining to the show but still I managed to find certain links from Dawn and BBC which helps establishing WP:GNG.182.182.64.239 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)— 182.182.64.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage to pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Daily series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Behan Meri Dewrani

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

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Only verification taht it exists or at least existed. CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Daily_series: notable cast, verifiable (for example with https://nettv4u.com/about/Urdu/tv-serials/meri-behan-meri-dewrani/all-cast-and-crew ) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability. Redirect is also possible as suggested above. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. The source nettv4u.com in the vote above is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES. No reliable sources with significant coverage can be found during the search. RangersRus (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programmes broadcast by Zee Zindagi#Former programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madiha Maliha

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

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Can verify it exist(ed) but nothing significant for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant mention here: https://tribune.com.pk/article/13733/pakistani-dramas-are-women-really-less-empowered-now for example; existing coverage (such as https://www.adgully.com/zindagi-all-set-with-new-show-madiha-maliha-59652.html) allows verification; notable cast, notable crew, so opposed to deletion, and suggesting redirect (and possible merge, with the said source and other sources for verification) to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi#Former programming.Mushy Yank (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, flagged for more citations for ten years but nothing was added and there is nothing significant to add to pass notability now. This fails WP:NACTRESS. Mekomo (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus that a list of deaths is not necessary. If any editor wants this content to Merge into the main storm article, we can make that happen but the verdict is againt a standalone article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy

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

A vast majority of this article is unsourced. There's no real reason that this list should exist, as although Tracy was a horrific tragedy, it is nowhere near the most deadliest (Typhoon Yagi and Hurricane Helene of this year are more deadlier than Tracy). I'd propose it for deletion, however, it was declined. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the specific event, and resultant deaths were of considerable trauma for the whole of Australia at the time, and this list has nothing to specifically existential comparison with other deadly cyclones. Australian weather events in the particular era were nowhere as deadly, or as circumstantially profound as it occurred in the Christmas New Year; also such surprise had been only happened on Darwin when it was bombed during the second world war. Of Australian disasters such as this one, and specifically the deaths, the actual numbers and identification of casualties is of considerable significance due to the length of time to resolve, and the potential for the number to be potentially in actuality never finalised due to suspicions about unidentified and unknown deaths.JarrahTree 06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history. The number death is a particularly contentious and prey to misinformation and conspiracy. This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere. The reference list could be expanded to support it better.--Tenniscourtisland (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history." This might be an argument for the notability of the main article on the storm itself (and even then, it's not really...it's the sources we have about it), but not for this list. "This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere." Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. This also rings a bit hollow since you're the creator and main contributor of this article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above reasons. Refs could be improved. Here's one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reliable source and does nothing to establish notability of this as a standalone topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note:I removed the prod because sources are available and deletion is not a cleanup tool) The deaths involved with Cyclone Tracy has resulted in multiple government/coroner inquiries, with names added and removed at various points in time over the last 50 years. The list has changed each time the inquiries were completed so it may require restructuring to show each change deletion is not the way to improve this article. Every person and every change can be referenced, thoug some sources will be paper sourcing which is held in Northern Territory Library requiring on the ground sources. Gnangarra 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my one is bigger than yours doesnt constitute deletion reasons either. Cyclone Tracy was avery unique cyclone, in timing, size, and intensity. Gnan garra 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the overall topic of the accounting for all the deaths might be noteworthy, it's already covered at the main article. This is just a context-less list of names and ages of the dead, which runs afoul of WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There's been a long tradition of not keeping lists like this, especially from natural disasters, and this one is no different. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event itself is notable but the names of all the casualties are not. If any are notable, they should be mentioned in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35 and Ajf773. Only very, very notable events warrant lists of victims, e.g. Sinking of the Titanic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cyclone Tracy. Some of the information is encyclopediac, some is not. But the main article is only 3,300 words and can handle the extra content. Thus the relevant information should be merged into the parent article. 12.69.202.75 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Striking vote by WMF-banned user. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Any notable fatalities can be included in main article. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Everything important can be in the main article. Bduke (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL is really all there is to say here. Tragic, horrific, but not a reason to list every name. Worldwide daily traffic accident deaths are the equivalent of loading up 6 A380s and flying them into the gound at top speed. We don't list them all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and just common sense. The quality of the information is never going to be that great; it's always going to be "... that we know about" once all the unsourced entries are struck, and thus incomplete. Deaths of notable persons and those whose deaths became notable through extended coverage can be mentioned in the main article, but sadly or not, large numbers of deaths are routine and expected when tropical storms hit, and the individual deaths are very rarely of note. Mangoe (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. While the circumstances are highly unfortunate, a page on this is seldom needed for any weather event, the only articles with logical exceptions to the NOTMEMORIAL rule are the 9/11 victim lists. E_F⁵ 14:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --_ZZ^Z 'S 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Epack Prefab

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

Epack Prefab

Article about an Indian company which manufactures pre-engineered buildings (PEBs), also known as prefabricated buildings, but does not establish corporate notability. None of the references are significant coverage by independent sources. The references are mostly press releases or paid pieces by the company or interviews with the company, and some of them are about the technology rather than the company.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	livemint.com	A corporate profile	No	Yes	?	No
2	Times of India	An interview with an officer in the course of an article	Yes	No. Passing mention.	No	?
3	news.abplive.com	An interview	No	Yes	?	No
4	businesstoday.in	An interview about how prefab building reduces pollution	No	Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes	No
5	www.tv9hindi.com	An interview about prefab building	No	Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes?	No
6	www.zeebiz.com	An interview about the company	No	Yes	Yes?	No
7	www.etnownews.com	An interview with some promotional content	No	Yes	Yes?	No
8	auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com	A feature story, reads as if it was paid	No	Yes	No. Times of India.	No
9	infra.economictimes.indiatimes.com	Another feature story, may be paid	No	Yes	No. Times of India.	No
10	www.financialexpress.com	Reads like a corporate profile	No	Yes	Yes	No
11	www.adgully.com	An ad in an advertising web site, corporate information	No	Yes	?	No
12	www.constructionworld.in	A press release	No	Yes	?	No
13	www.outlookbusiness.com	An interview about prefab building	No	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	?	No
14	The Hindu	A press release	No	Don't know. Only able to view lead of article due to paywall, but that was enough to see that it is a press release.	Yes	No
15	indianinfrastructure.com	Article about prefab building. Doesn't mention the company.	Yes	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes	No?
16	www.zeebiz.com	An article about prefab building. No mention of company.	Yes	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes?	No
17	www.business-standard.com	A press release about corporate plans.	No	Yes	Yes	No

This article was originally created in article space by a now-blocked promotional editor, and moved back to draft space by the blocking administrator. This article appears to be identical to the draftified article by another editor. There are concerns about covert advertising, but it isn't necessary to know whether there is covert advertising, because there isn't coverage that satisfies corporate notability. The author of this version of the article has now been blocked as a sockpuppet.

The draft can be left standing because drafts are not checked for notability. In view of the history of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest, salting is probably in order in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Uttar Pradesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack notability Per WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d like to address Reference Number 5. It was mentioned that this is just an interview about prefab building, but after reviewing it carefully, I see it as an independent article. The article discusses EPACK Prefab’s role in the prefabricated construction sector. In it, the director of EPACK Prefab highlights how prefabrication allows for up to 90% of the work to be completed in a factory, which significantly speeds up the construction process. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that explores prefab construction and specifically references Epack Prefab company's name. Suhailjav (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d also like to address Reference Number 1. It is mentioned that this is an interview, but after a thorough review, I believe it’s actually an independent article. The article covers the growth of warehousing in Visakhapatnam and includes references to EPACK Prefab’s contributions within this sector. It highlights the company’s involvement in prefab construction for warehousing, showing how our solutions support this expanding industry. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that provides insight into warehousing growth while specifically mentioning EPACK Prefab’s role. Suhailjav (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reference Number 10. It was noted that this reference 'reads like a corporate profile,' but upon reviewing it, I see it as an independent article focused on EPACK Prefab’s #WasteToWorth campaign. The article discusses the company’s sustainability and recycling initiatives rather than promoting its profile. It specifically highlights EPACK Prefab’s efforts to encourage eco-friendly practices within the prefabrication industry. In my view, this piece serves as a report on the campaign and EPACK Prefab’s commitment to sustainable practices, rather than a corporate profile. Suhailjav (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be eligible for WP:G4 as it closely resembles the page deleted in July following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPACK Prefab. Yuvaank (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEYMANN. The subject certainly meets WP:LISTED, WP:NCORP and Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including the EPACK Prefab to set up pre-engineered building manufacturing unit in Tirupati district of Andhra Pradesh written by V. Raghavendra from The Hindu which is a reliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Hindu, Vishakhapattanam records 265% increase in warehousing] written by Umamaheswara Rao from The Times of India generally count as reliable and Can pre-engineered building construction help reduce air pollution in Delhi? written by Nidhi Singal from Business Today magazine which is also a reliable resource. 2409:40D0:2022:3A4:A8BB:13DD:AC2:204F (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — 2409:40D0:2022:3A4:A8BB:13DD:AC2:204F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to WP:HEY makes less than zero sense here. The article is literally the exact same at this time as it was at the time it was nominated for deletion. I would also note that The Times of India is not presumed generally reliable; see WP:TOI. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant coverage in national media. The page appears to have passed WP:NPP. Additionally, it satisfies WP:GNG and meets WP:LISTED.Wasisi Cyclelove (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Resources passes WP:GNG and it also meets WP:LISTED. AmericanY (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwatumininu

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

Page about a name, sourced to one unreliable (wiki) and very short source. I had redirected it to the one article for someone with this name, but this was reverted, so here we are. This AfD is to reinstate the redirect, not to delete it. This seems to be part of some major Nigerian project to have a separate article for every single Nigerian name, no matter the notability or the need for a disambiguation. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Disambiguations, and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect of all the possible options, a redirect to Ayodele Awojobi (a person who has this as their middle name, is not particularly prominent, and is definitely not the primary topic) seems the worst. Keep, delete, soft-redirect to Wiktionary, merge to a list of Yoruba names; any would be better than the suggested redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the one name-holder listed, Ayodele Awojobi, was male, and the first ref in his article gives his middle name as Olutuminu (though this could easily be a common abbreviated form, like "Chris" or "Pam"), so better sourcing is needed in both articles. PamD 08:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If the one listed isn't even named this (or we can't verify it), then of course it shouldn't redirect and should be deleted instead. Fram (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources I could find outside of baby name websites of questionable reliability. Since the one listed person has it as their middle name, a redirect would serve no practical purpose, especially since it is not even in the article title. I agree there does seem to be a lot of problematic editing within the sphere of Nigerian names lately. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no predjudice against re-ceation as a WP:SIA should notable people with the name show up. I haven't found any yet, unfortunately. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oluwatumininu is not a common name of Awojobi, so, delete. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Park

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

Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article do not pass any sourcing guidelines and could not find other sources as Google search showed only unreliable sites where the subject is mentioned. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Mekomo (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has a role in the main cast of Snowpiercier (https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2020/05/19/the-spectacular-susan-park-on-snowpiercer/ https://deadline.com/2017/08/snowpiercer-susan-park-cast-series-regular-in-tnt-pilot-1202158674/) and various recurring roles in notable series. Various sources (some being intros of interviews, the focus varying, and the quality too) allow to verify that. So that she meets WP:NACTOR in my view and deletion is not necessary. (also see https://deadline.com/2024/08/twinless-movie-adds-chis-perfetti-francois-arnaud-more-cast-1236050504/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/movies/always-be-my-maybe-review.html (role mentioned with short appraisal) https://www.thewrap.com/keanu-reeves-joins-ali-wong-randall-park-comedy-always-be-my-maybe-at-netflix/ (simple mention) https://cinemadailyus.com/interviews/actress-susan-park-on-sxsw-pilot-lucy-sara/ Other sources in other languages exist. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she has roles in notable films/TV series, but they are usually minor roles. I was not able to find much beyond simple mentions of her in reliable sources. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually", maybe but that means not always, not all, and indeed she is in the main cast of Snowpiercer and has recurring/signficant roles in other productions (see NY Times and other sources mentioning them) and the guideline requires significant roles in notable productions, not that none of her roles (or even only a small part of them) should be minor. Mushy Yank (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Twinless and Snowpiercer. Her role in William also seems to be significant enough. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is moderate coverage, ranging from only trivial to beyond trivial, across multiple reliable sources, which supports weak notability. But sources from Deadline and Cinema Daily US passes WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you looking at? I do not believe Cinema Daily US is an RS (seems like a film blog), and the Deadline articles that I have found are simple casting announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. K. Kurien

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BASIC. Another one of those accountant articles that doesn't tell us much except the positions he has held within his company. Considering that this and a lot of similar accountant articles were written more than a decade ago, many of them might have already retired. His so-called accomplishments are what any department head of any business firm might have also done. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Perry (computer specialist)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macalester College Observatory

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

Beyond the single primary reference to the observatory's homepage, the only sources a WP:BEFORE search turned up were very small newspaper items, like this two-paragraph one for the opening, that lack enough detail to meet WP:SIGCOV. Sdkb ^talk 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Macalester College as nominator. Sdkb ^talk 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's beyond the scope of this AfD, but if anyone wants to seek out AfDable articles, the new Category:University and college astronomical observatories is chock full of them. Sdkb ^talk 07:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Astronomy, and Minnesota. Sdkb ^talk 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Blue Fire

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

Fails WP:GNG prod opposed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor_Who:_The_Monthly_Adventures#2011 or delete. I wasn't able to find anything to establish that this was notable. The overall Monthly Adventures series is notable, but not all of the story arcs are independently notable of the main series. To be honest, the majority of these are likely not independently notable. Doctor Who is a wonderful, notable series but so much content is put out that most outlets (that Wikipedia would see as reliable, notability giving sources) would not be able to keep up with the releases and still cover other content. Doesn't mean that some of them might not gain coverage enough to be notable, but it does make it far less likely. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎ * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Public Schools

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

out of date info,lack of secondary sources best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear you don't understand the deletion process here on Wikipedia. An article being out of date is a reason to update it, not delete it. And the state of sourcing on any particular article is irrelevant. Deletion is not about the article at hand, but rather, about the subject of the article. Is it your position that there aren't secondary sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject in detail available for the largest school district in Virginia; a school district that levies taxes and has a publicly elected board? That's nonsensical. I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination, and read the instructions linked in the box near the top of this page prior to submitting any further AFD nominations. And if you aren't willing to do that, then I'd ask that an administrator close this as an improper nomination. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I saw that it was mostly reliant on a primary source with few secondary sources when I added this nomination

However you make a fair point it is the largest school district in the state of Virginia I myself graduated from Hermitage High School in 2019 so i am trying to have a neutral position on the articles subject that said i will withdraw this deletion when i get on my computer after work best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ErkDemon (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity

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

This article is purely WP:OR. All of the sources are used to contradict the theory of relativity by taking the quotes presented out of context. This clearly violates WP:NOT. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence is untrue -- the quotes are not out of context. Please provide an alleged example. And it's not attempting to "contradict the theory of relativity", it's identifying problems with Einstein's continuing 1915-onwards attempted implementation of a general theory, which he himself said failed to meet his objectives (relativity of inertia). In 1950, Einstein himself wrote that the two-stage structure used in 1916 wasn't defensible and proposed an alternative single-stage structure. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's a couple:

In the Intuition part of the Einstein's approach to physics, Lee Smolin is cited:

Smolin (1980): " Einstein was a storyteller. ... Einstein succeeded when he was able to formulate a principle or hypothesis about nature, which he, or sometimes others, later expressed in mathematical terms; he failed when he attempted to use mathematics as a substitute for insight into nature. "

And then the comment below is:

"In cases below, Einstein knew how he thought the universe should work, but was not always able to devise legitimate derivations to support his positions."

It looks like Smolin's interpreting how Einstein came up with his theory and how he had some roadblocks, but you're using this analysis to try to cast doubt on the theory.

And in the Cheerleading part of the Summary section, there's this quote:

MTW (1973): " No inconsistency of principle has ever been found in Einstein's geometric theory of gravity. "

And under that, there's speculation about the authors of it acting in bad faith.

I've noticed some other similar areas in the article. I'm not going to debate exactly what is being misinterpreted or how, but this article nitpicks Einstein and other scientists' statements and tries to change their meanings, making it OR. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 22:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given by User:That Tired Tarantula: original research, quote mining, general crackpottery. Athel cb (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this type of article which is WP:OR written from the writer's perspective. ~~I don't think it is crackpottery~~: the article raises interesting questions and I hope it will be published elsewhere. But Wikipedia follows opinion: it does not lead it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Transwikiing to uncyclopedia would also be reasonable if that’s feasible. McYeee (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. *gestures vaguely at Brandolini's law* Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandolini's Law is why the article is so long. Any fool can BS and declare "The 1916 framework has no problems!", but opposing that claim by documenting even just the main documented failures requires substantial time and effort. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR article that does not fit with the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. Also food for crackpotery WP:FRINGE.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose you could class Einstein's suggested revised architecture for GR, presented in Scientific American in 1950 as "fringe". But I don't think Einstein should be classed as a crackpot. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this article appears to be mostly WP:OR. Although the editor cites numerous sources, the quotes have been taken out of context. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, the quotes are in context. Please supply an alleged example where they are not. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obvious WP:OR that is not appropriate encyclopaedia content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as a transparent example of the kind of "physicists are all wrong about physics" screed that we invented the WP:NOR policy to prohibit. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the person who announced that the 1916 architecture was now indefensible was Einstein himself (1950). If Einstein was right that it was not appropriate to base a general theory on a non-GR-compatible foundation (as he had done in 1915/1916), then that would seem to explain why the 1915/1916 version of GR has had so many problems and inconsistencies.ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title of the article is a signal that this is not a summary of sources but a point of view essay. Primary source quotes are wrapped in unsourced personal commentary with consistently negative editorial comments. The overall article places undue emphasis on minor issues of no concern to mainstream physics, eg relationship to special relativity. The article dismisses works like Misner, Thorne and Wheeler "Gravitation" as "cheerleading". It weirdly presents amazing consequences of Einstein's work as errors, eg a section on "Incompatibility with classical field theory" (so?) and "Incompatibility with modern cosmology" (a field created by the 1916 paper). Johnjbarton (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, modern cosmology (in the sense of a spatially closed, expanding universe with Hubble redshifts) was emphatically not created by the 1916 paper. The 1916 paper's cosmology was flattish, pseudo-Euclidean, infinite and unbounded, time-symmetrical and was constant with time.

The revised 1917 version of the theory arbitrarily changed the geometry of space to be spatially spherical, in order to fix the relativity of inertia, but in order to keep the cosmology time-symmetrical and static, Einstein introduced Lambda to cancel the effects of long-distance cumulative curvature. The 1917 theory had no Hubble redshift, no expansion or contraction, and was characterised by deSitter as "cylindrical".

Einstein's was initially one of the main voices against modern Hubble cosmology. When Lemaitre suggested an expanding universe, Einstein told him that his (Lemaitre's) physics was "abominable", and Einstein refused to accept expanding-universe cosmology until the early 1930s, when it became clear that the Hubble result was here to stay, leaving Einstein no choice but to agree that it should be predicted by his theory after all ... the alternative being to accept that his theory was invalidated by the Hubble result. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The overall article places undue emphasis on minor issues of no concern to mainstream physics, eg relationship to special relativity."

Then you don't understand the 1916 architecture, or its dependencies. The reason why Einstein's 1916 structure is incompatible with QM is its SR component. If we honestly didn't care about preserving the "SR" side of GR, we could make GR compatible with QM tomorrow: we could embrace Einstein's 1950 suggestion, invoke Hawking's 2014 suggestion of reconciling GR with QM by making horizons relative rather than absolute (which requires non-SR equations), and embrace a relativistic acoustic metric (which requires non-SR equations) rather than a Minkowski-based metric. We could have theory of quantum gravity in that sense up and running in maybe a few months. The reason we don't go down this path is that it's generally considered that losing special relativity is too high a price to pay for a solution. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know a lot about these topics. But Wikipedia is not about your knowledge, opinions, or points of view. It is a summary of published analysis, not a venue for your analysis. Rather than try to tell "The Truth", I hope you might contribute to the encyclopedia in ways that match its goals. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm arguably the expert on this subject ... but that may rule me out from contributing, on the grounds of bias! A decade or two ago, I did get invited to to join the WP physics steering group, due to the quantity of physics articles I'd authored here, but there was at least one of the existing members that I wouldn't have wanted to be professionally associated with under any circumstances, so I declined.

This was an experiment. I might swing by again in another ten years, to see if anything's changed. See you in 2035. Have a nice decade. ErkDemon (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The factual content of the article is accurate and supported by sources, and has reference value. If someone wants to know what the basic "problem issues" are with Einstein's GR, this article tells them. There might be a way of keeping the references and basic information, but rewriting the thing to address the stylistic issues. If the article disappears, that can't happen.

DELETE - It's been a week now, all votes apart from mine have been for deletion, this is a democracy (kinda), so ... deletion it is. ErkDemon (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I knew when writing the article that it would be a challenge, and that it would probably need to rely to some extent on WP:IGNORE to justify its existence.

The article is very long, but this because there is so much that is problematic with Einstein's pre-1950 architecture. A simple listing with references would still be quite long.
The article mostly cites primary sources. In an ideal world, the physics community would have already produced many papers addressing the documented problems (both solved and outstanding) with Einstein's system, and we could then write an article summarising those reviews. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, and no such reviews seem to exist. I would suggest that the reason why there seem to be no proper peer-reviewed reviews of the GR1916 structure is because it is not possible to write a review without the result being negative, and because nobody in the community is willing to publicly be negative about the 1916 theory for fear of being labelled an "anti-Einstein crackpot" by their colleagues.

If I'm wrong about this, and there do exist serious analytical studies of Einstein's system that conclude that the thing is geometrically valid, and that it somehow manages to simultaneously both support the SR relationships and the GPoR, then please, by all means add a section to the end of the article with references and quotes, as a counterpoint. I'll be genuinely interested to see what you can come up with. However, I should point out that in thirty years of asking enthusiastic supporters of GR1916 why they are so convinced that the 1916 system works, and what reviews they've seen that support their deeply-held belief that it works as geometry, nobody's ever been able to give me a supporting reference. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article is being XfD'd because it is original research. This is just not what Wikipedia is supposed to be used for. WP:IGNORE is good for when there's small, specific things that would make it harder to create encyclopedic content, but it should not be used to justify an entire article that clearly violates the purpose of WP. There's also another article about this topic. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 21:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to a non-encyclopedic essay is not to add a "counterpoint". The proper response is deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author even acknowledges that the physics community has not written any secondary reviews of the "problems" with GR and thus he has to rely on primary sources for this article. That's literally the definition of OR! JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the reasons given in the nomination. TarnishedPath^talk 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ErkDemon I suggest you go write a blog, publish a book, start a podcast—whatever it is you think necessary to make the world aware of the issues you think exist. Wikipedia is just not the right platform for this sort of original research. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Disregarding the already well-argued WP:OR and WP:NOT issues, it is arguable that this page lacks a distinct reason to exist in the first place. A summary of scientist's counterpoints to Einstein's framework could easily have been condensed and included in the General Theory of Relativity page as a subsection. TWorkman (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While this article might seem to be borderline regarding notability, I see no support here for Deletion which makes a Keep closure more understandable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Computing, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith where a brief, sourced mention is likely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. As "Joseph A. Lauritis, C.S.Sp Endowed Chair in Teaching and Technology", he pretty clearly meets WP:PROF criterion 5. He's also won a Fullbright Fellowship, which (my instinct is) is enough for criterion 2. The Rowling stuff certainly helps, too. (Here is a profile in the Chronicle of Higher Education, for example.) And he's authored several books, so he may meet WP:AUTHOR, but I've not looked closely. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With apologies to User:J Milburn but just having a chair definitely does not qualify under #C5, it has to be a very major chair as discussed in the notes. Also getting a Fulbright is definitely not notable enough to qualify for anything by itself. The only reason I have a Weak is because the topics he has in GS are low citations topics. If there were truly independent awards then I might change to Keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Changed to Abstain, since notability is now being based upon WP:BASIC whereas previously I voted to disagree with the comments by Josh Milburn that he passed WP:NPROF. I don't have enough experience with the other classes of WP:NOTABILITY compared to others in this discussion, hence I am now abstaining. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify what parts of the notes you're referring to? 5a refers to sourcing; 5c is about the institution. 5b clarifies that the chair in question 'can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments', but that applies here; he was a tenured full professor before being given the chair. As for Fullbright: my reading of criterion 2a was that a Fullbright Fellowship (which is surely 'independent'?) would presumably count. But, in any case, these things all point towards notability, and certainly (in my view) push back against the 'notable for one event' claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A good way to judge awards is by who gets them, how selective they are and how much attention a university gives them. Everyone from junior to emeritus can get a Fulbright; there are about 900 faculty scholars per year, and top universities do only a nominal press release and nothing else. (The statement about how uni admin considers them is both personal experience and by asking several others.)
  
  You can compare this to NAE/NAS, where in all the cases I know the academic received much, much more from the admin, justifiably.
  
  N.B., David Eppstein has already responded about #C5 in detail. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this chair does not pass #C5. As described here (as linked from Douglas Harper), it funds someone to be responsible for "for integrating technology and teaching in Duquesne’s classrooms". That is, it is the kind of chair given ex officio to people who do a job, as a reward or slush fund for doing that job, not the kind of chair described in #C5 given for outstanding scholarship. He may nevertheless be notable in other ways, such as #C1, but not that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the profile I posted above, I note this Washington Post article, which opens with 'Until recently, Patrick Juola was known primarily as the man who outed J.K. Rowling as the author of “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” a book she penned under another name. // Now Juola can add another high-profile outing to his resume.' It's about Juola's work on the origins of Bitcoin, meaning that Juola has received significant press coverage for at least two research contributions. (And he's a full professor with a named chair. And he's won a Fullbright Fellowship.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the subject meets WP:PROF by citations. In particular he appears 5th in GS for "stylometry", 10th for "text analysis" and in the top 40 for "digital forensics". I'm seeing fairly highly cited papers that long pre-date the Rowling work, some of which also pre-date recent citation inflation. J Milburn's comment immediately above suggests this is not a one-event situation. Agree that reviews should be sought for his books. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at JSTOR, did not find book reviews, but a chapter in Close Reading with Computers by Martin Paul Eve (JSTOR jj.8305917.7) appears to contain quite a bit of discussion of his opinions, and there also look to be significant mentions in JSTOR 23025619 and arguably JSTOR 26821537,JSTOR 27073814,JSTOR 26451329 as well as possibly some others not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tidied the article a little, adding references to six decent secondary sources; a profile in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is entirely about Juolo; pieces in National Geographic and Smithsonian that discuss his work at some length (there are lots more like this: Times, Telegraph, Scotsman, etc.); and a piece in The Washington Post that is entirely about his work and (crucially) not about Rowling. Other articles about his research that aren't about Rowling (and, indeed, predate the Rowling story) come from two Pittsburgh broadsheets. Again, these are entirely devoted to Juolo and his work. I suggest that this is enough to show that Juolo meets the notability requirements for biographies at WP:BASIC, even if (as some people here argue) he doesn't meet the requirements at WP:PROF. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free, Indiana

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

A rail point marked by a grain elevator complex which has changed over the years but which has nothing else around it. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Cannot see any community there on Google Maps. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Locale is only notable at a local level.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foresman, Benton County, Indiana

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

This is an example of why I'm inclined to take Baker calling a place a "village" with a grain of salt. This is indeed a rail point, but there's no sign of a settlement or for that matter any place it could have been. There is one business, a concrete plant, which replaced a different ag/industrial facility sometime in the 1960s/'70s. Other than that, nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 13 November 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 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Nothing on Google News. No community seen on Google Maps. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

In the future, LibStar, inform the article creator when you nominate an article for deletion. This is aided by using Twinkle to tag pages for AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Browne

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. An unremarkable career. 3rd source is her employer, 2nd source is a media release. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:GNG - Google News apparently only turns up false positives. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing a notification of the creator, MurielMary, who might be able to explain why they believed notability requirements were met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Maps

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

The only secondary coverage available is from campus papers, which don't contribute to notability under NORG's heightened audience requirements. Sdkb ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, and Computing. Sdkb ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sourcing to establish notability. --Here2rewrite (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Campus card. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of campus identifications in mobile wallets

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

This list fundamentally fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is sourced only to individual universities or to the technology platforms that provide the mobile wallets, both primary sources. The best case for WP:NLIST would invoke the secondary coverage in dubious-reliability sources like CNET (generally unreliable at RSP) and TechCrunch ("may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability" at RSP), but even setting aside the reliability concerns, these articles mention only a few institutions rather than discussing them all as a group. Lastly, at the risk of making a prediction, the long-term prospects for this list are poor, since presuming this technological trend continues, eventually nearly every college will be part of it. Sdkb ^talk 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campus card, where the overall trend is discussed, but without merging the indiscriminate list, as nominator. Sdkb ^talk 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Lists. Sdkb ^talk 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fargo, Benton County, Indiana

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

According to the topos, a former passing siding; now, just a name by the tracks in a field. No sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Maps shows ... one farm / residence. There is nothing on Google News, that one link isn't talking about this Fargo. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Yung-kyoo

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable and has GA potential as captain of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team, a recipient of the title People's Athlete (honoring the greatest North Korean sportspeople in history - [35] - satisfying WP:ANYBIO), being one of ~five players focused on in a full-length book in North Korea (ref 1), being considered a national sports hero (per The Game of Their Lives) and a very prominent member of the national team with freaking 97 caps. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only was a book covering him written in North Korea, but at the National Library of South Korea there's a 240-page book on Legend of Destiny: Shin Young-gyu and Park Seung-jin who wrote the myth of the 1966 England World Cup quarterfinals from 2020! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11; really poor nomination. Giant Snowman 19:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Song-gun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a prominent member of the national team with 27 games and seven goals. A search brings up a number of mentions of him in South Korean media from the time. I think one could certainly write at least a decent start-class article on him... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - to allow BeanieFan11 to improve the article. Giant Snowman 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTech Systems

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this. A search for sources found company's involvement in a skill development scam but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lezhin Comics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 Cut Hero

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

#Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

(Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

'4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

(Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"

But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion has been relisted twice with no new participation so I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. There are editors arguing that existing sources and new ones brought to this discussion are sufficient to establish notability and editors who disagree with them. I anticipate this article making a return trip to AFD but please wait a few months, not days, before doing so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Francis W. Wynkoop

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there: delete. Athel cb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something now@Athel cb:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep: ~~and restore immediately the content!~~ This is not how things should be done. On top of this, Wynkoop is a notable architect. I understand the nominator has good intentions but this is a procedural keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I have restored the content. While BLARing and redirecting the page could have been acceptable (maybe not the best solution, but procedurally acceptable at least), the mere blanking of the page was disruptive, especially as the one !voter here does not seem to have looked at the history of the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:
fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability
Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.

Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.

Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is even if WP:ARCHITECT is met, WP:GNG isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where WP:NBIO requires a person to meet GNG even if one of the additional criteria is met. (It doesn’t.) The SNG provides alternative paths to notability for biographies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Not meeting the GNG is an excellent reason not to have a stand-alone article on someone, especially if there's only one work they're considered notable for, as they can be discussed briefly in that article instead of having a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local architect that designed non-notable structures. We have confirmation of this, but architects all over the world design things. These buildings aren't on the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they seem to have any special association with any historical items. The Butterfly House was never nominated for any sort of award and it's not a registered historic structure. We have simply a architect that designed interesting buildings, neither of which is terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You (film)

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

This is about an unreleased film which does not satisfy film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself has received significant coverage by reliable sources. A review of the sources shows that they are all announcements or press releases about the film or its songs. The first five references, in four different media, are essentially identical, which is best explained that they are the same press releases to different media.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	The Hindu	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
2	cinemaexpress.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
3	thesouthfirst.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
4	www.business-standard.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
5	The Hindu	Same as 1	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
6	timesnownews.com	States that movie will be filmed.	Probably.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
7	Times of India	Passing mention of a song.	Maybe	No. Passing mention.	No	Yes
8	cinemaexpress.com	Press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
9	cinemaexpress.com	Another press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
10	news18.com	An announcement about the film.	Probably.	Not for this purpose.	Yes	Yes

There is also a draft; the draft and the article are by different authors. The information in this article and in the draft can be merged in the draft, and the draft can be submitted, with reviews and other quality sources, when the film has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because release is announced for late November, I would normally have suggested to keep this and I would have merged the draft into it .....but there are TWO drafts Draft:Miss You Movie (created yesterday, just before the article, same creator) and Draft:Miss You (film) by User:Gowthamaprabu (created 21. 10); the latter was declined by the nom. Read the following comment: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Miss You (film) instead.", said the nom of the present AfD when declining the page.....which, if I was the page creator, would make me think, the page discussed here is not concerned by deletion! Still as Gowthamaprabu's Draft was the first page to be created, I consider it should be the starting point so I suggest a merge of all three pages into Draft:Miss You (film). Premise is known, actors are notable, coverage for verification exists, so even if it's the other way around, I won't be shocked but declining the Draft and inviting its creator to expand a page and, an hour later or so, taking the said page to AfD is a bit confusing.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Robert McClenon and @Mushy Yank! Hope you're both doing well! I wanted to provide some context regarding the article Miss You (2024), which covers the upcoming film set for release at the end of November 2024. As mentioned transparently, I have been commissioned by the producers to edit and create content for this article, ensuring accurate representation of the movie. I’ve Confirmed that the official release date is November 29, 2024, though due to a lack of publicly available citations, I haven't specified the date in the article itself. I’ve included all available information with relevant citations, and I believe the content is accurate and complete as presented. If possible, I'd suggest we retain the article and continue to improve it together. We could even consider merging it with Draft: Miss You (Film) by User:Gowthamaprabu to consolidate information. Meena1998 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Draft:Miss You (film) since the film's release is near, let's wait. Once it hits theaters, it is expected to get more coverage and critical reviews. You can then update the page and publish it through the AFC route. For now, let's merge its content into the declined draft:).Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to merge Miss You (film) article with my draft Draft:Miss You (film). Gowthamaprabu (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion has No consensus being divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and others who advocate a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Attractions

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. The key thing here is the album they released on their own, which despite the nominator's statement, isn't even mentioned in the Costello article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.

In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The E Street Band has a separate article even tho never being credited as such on any albums nor having released any album on their own. Attractions members sustained careers as session musicians, as did E Street Band members, and live backing musicians, which E Street Band members did to a lesser extent. 2600:E001:1AD:6400:79E4:6995:B836:A675 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The E Street band have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, and have lots of coverage and articles specifically about them.

The Attractions just don't have that level of notability in the same way DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Attractions were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003. Velociraptor888 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - Elvis Costello & The Attractions were. The E Street Band was inducted as a standalone entity, separate from Springsteen's induction. The Attractions were inducted as an extension of Costello. We need to demonstrate individual notability separate from Costello, and this induction doesn't even slightly prove that DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Milowent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This band's music separate from Costello may not be notable, but they can still demonstrate notability through the GNG. They have been called one of the best backing bands in rock history, backed up by three citations, alongside other sources like this, clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of their significant coverage is about their relationship with Costello. We can add a section to Costello's page related to the band where there are points worthy of inclusion.

There's no point relying on WP:GNG when we have subject-specific guidelines in WP:BAND that show more specifically what the requirements are for a band to have their own article. They'd have to demonstrate that notability separate from their work with Costello DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeputyBeagle I’m not strongly opposed to a merge, but there is never “no point relying on the GNG”. SNGs are an alternative route to demonstrating notability, alongside the GNG. You’ll notice that WP:BAND #1 is the GNG. And the band only has to meet one of these criteria, not all of them.

The question now is one of WP:PAGEDECIDE, whether we should keep or merge. I do not see anything at WP:BAND that helps us make that decision, so based on my own judgement I believe that there is more than enough sourced content for a standalone article. Merging would add more clutter to the already long article on Elvis Costello. But reasonable folk may disagree, and to me it’s no big deal either way.

Next time, when you’re not actually gunning for the deletion of an article, but simply want a merge, you should start a merge discussion (WP:MERGE) or BOLDly do it yourself rather than come to AfD. You might get less participation that way, but folks will spend much less time arguing about the GNG and NBAND (since deletion isn’t on the table), and much more time discussing which way of organizing the content is best for readers. You might even get no participation, in which case you can just do it! Toadspike [Talk] 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want a merge, I wanted a delete but I've accepted that a merge is more popular than a delete here, and I've no problem with a merge.

The GNG always applies yes, but the SNG gives more specific advice pertinent to this situation.

The short and the long of it is that there is no sigcov about the Attractions as a seperate body from Costello. There's only one article in the references that's specifically about the Attractions as opposed to being an article about Costello that references the Attractions. Even then it's about their work with Costello with no reference at all to Mad About the Wrong Boy, their only independent work. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not important whether or not participants consider this subject notable or not. It depends on whether or not reliable sources can help establish notability. But I see only a little discussion here of the quality of the sourcing. Can we get a source analysis to see if there is enough SIGCOV to warrant a separate article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 09:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peruri 88

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

The article generally does not meet the WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG guidelines. Had the building been constructed or been under construction, it might have qualified under these guidelines, as it would be the tallest building in Jakarta and likely attract substantial coverage. Unfortunately, it remains only a design proposal from 2012, and 12 years later, there have been no further updates or developments on this plan. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we had a look for sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Peruri 88. Also note that, at least for the coordinates of the purported site, very recent Google StreetView imagery shows no evidence of the site being cleared (there's still commercial and residential structures, apparently occupied), never mind construction. Ckfasdf has informed user:M R Karim Reza, the article's creator (who remains active on en.wikipedia), of the deletion.-- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlay McWalter: This is the latest Google Street View image, dated August 2024, showing no signs of construction or site clearing. The proposed location is still in use by Peruri as their office and facility Ckfasdf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a potential compilation of planned but either on-hold.., or otherwise never constructed projects in Jakarta, or something similar, rather than delete, there are probably a lot more there, waiting to join the list, and in a collection it would be adequately notable as a phenomenon, rather than in single sites as never started projects or stalled proposals.JarrahTree 11:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence that this is anything more than an unfunded paper project. As such, there are no real independent sources and no substantial coverage. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If proposing a Merge or Redirect, please spell out the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without a proposed target article, this article can not be Merged. Please identify one if this is your desired outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything we can merge this too. It was expected to be finished by 2020, but here we are almost 5 years later and still nothing. Interesting bit of local trivial perhaps, but nothing we need an article about. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Building projects as a rule shouldn't have articles until some actually starts digging, and all evidence is that this didn't happen. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.

[2] "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

[3] "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

[1]

[2]

[1]