Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 26

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      October 28 (Mon)      October 27 (Sun)      October 26 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only independent reliable sources found in English or Bengali are brief mentions in lists (e.g. [1]). They do not contain the significant coverage required to justify a stand alone article. Was earlier redirected to the surrounding community, Rangpur Cantonment, where the school is mentioned, but the redirect was removed by an editor who appears very familiar with the school outside of what published sources say. Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initially it was a independent article but later someone removed all texts and redirected to Rangpur Cantonment.

Then I rescued this article. It’s a famous school in northern Bangladesh.

unfortunately i didn’t add any reference.

Now I’ve added some references, it’s not an easy task to get newslink for a school.

There is also articles about this school in other languages.

I’m requesting not to delete this article. Cerium4B (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've added — the school's website, two copies of a press release, another promotional piece with no byline, a blank page at the District Education Office, and a job posting — lack independence from the school and so do not demonstrate notability (which is not the same as being famous). Also, most of them fail to support the content (see citing sources for more information). That it is not an easy task to get sources for this school is a sign that it is not notable.

That two other language versions of Wikipedia have an article about the school is not relevant to this discussion. Just because an article exists, doesn't mean it should exist, and each language version operates under its own policies and guidelines, decided by the editors who edit there, so even if an article should exist in one language that doesn't mean it should exist in another. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/country-news/2024/06/03/1394068

Worldbruce

Check this news; it’s in Bengali. Please translate it.

I’m requesting you not to delete this article- Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur. It’s very hard to find news about a school. Cerium4B (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Non of the sources seem like anything but fluff pieces. The sources that aren't their own site or government data seem to be small local papers. Honestly, too many schools probably have a wiki page and should be removed.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 18:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kaler Kantho just a small local newspaper? 😂

Honestly, I believe Wikipedia should restrict foreigners from editing articles related to other countries. Cerium4B (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this, Cerium4B? We are all anonymous, so I'm not sure who you are referring to by labeling editors "foreigners". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz

Actually i am talking about @Speederzzz.

He is from Netherland.

He said that Kaler Kantho is a small local newspaper but it is a National newspaper in Bangladesh. Cerium4B (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce

Check these references related to Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur from reputed newspapers of Bangladesh (including The Daily Star, Prothom Alo)

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

^[7]

^[8]

^[9]

^[10]

^[11]

^[12]

^[13]

^[14]

^[15] Cerium4B (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do not seem to get what is and isn't Significant coverage, I will show you how your sources are/aren't applicable. If you want some more examples, WP:SIRS has some.

^[16] Not significant, only 4 pictures.

^[17] Not significant, 1 sentence in an extremely short list.

^[18] 404 error

^[19] Not significant, 1 sentence in an extremely short list.

^[20] No direct discussion of topic, only passing mention that the 3rd place in an essay writing competition went to that school.

^[21] Not significant, only passing mention in this artist's life. (The title wasn't even correct, the original title doesn't even mention the school)

^[22] 404 error, I cannot be sure but the lack of capital letter makes me think this title was changed from it's real title too.

^[23] Not significant, short announcement that they are the highest scoring school in the region that year.

^[24] No direct discussion of topic, only short mention that one of the participants went to the school.

^[25] No direct discussion of topic, only states students came from the school. Title was also changed, instead first sentence was used.

^[26] Not significant, very short mention in a very short letter.

^[27] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of school results.

^[28] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of schools.

^[29] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of schools. Title was changed in a weird way.

^[30] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of schools. Title was also weirdly changed.

As you can see non of these sources are usable under the rules of significant coverage. If someone so fervent to keep the page can't even find significant coverage, I don't think anyone is going to find it.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm female. Second, I said seem because the style does not seem very "national news-y". Some of these sources mention a lot of these schools in a list and not talk about the school in specific or the school is mentioned in passing only. If you want I can look at all your sources and show you which ones are and are not indicative of significant coverage, but one of them is just four pictures, so I feel like you might not fully understand the policies on significant coverage.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 09:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, checked the news in bengali,Well-known government owned educational institution. can be improved in the text body of the article. UzbukUdash (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to maybe instead merge back into/expand on (since it's already mentioned) in the Rangpur Cantonment? The page needs quite an overhaul in sources for now at least. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 14:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing secondary coverage. SirMemeGod  17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The initial review of the sources presented appears to indicate the subject is not notable, but a relist feels appropriate to gain a clearer concensus on this one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Lamar Lady Cardinals softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a run-of-the-mill college softball team that compiled a mediocre/poor 22–34 record, won no championships and did not advance to the playoffs or have other notable accomplishments. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources and is based instead on databases sources and/or routine press releases from non-independent, captive sources such as the school and conference websites. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 20 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!} 23:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1939–40 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or re-draftify. There's definitely something out there - see [2], which has a different date and scoreline for the final. This also contains similar but different information. If we could simply independently verify the information and fix what's wrong, I'd switch to keep in an instant. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy, doesn't need a separate article. GiantSnowman 14:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy – Impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can User:I dream of horses stop creating these. At least one of the two original nominations is trending to keep. The normal method with these kinds of things is just to nominate a single article, and see how that goes. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz See here. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1938–39 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy, doesn't need a separate article. GiantSnowman 14:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy – Impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can User:I dream of horses stop creating these. At least one of the two original nominations is trending to keep. The normal method with these kinds of things is just to nominate a single article, and see how that goes. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz See here. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1937–38 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy, doesn't need a separate article. GiantSnowman 14:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy – Impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can User:I dream of horses stop creating these. At least one of the two original nominations is trending to keep. The normal method with these kinds of things is just to nominate a single article, and see how that goes. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz Technically, I "stopped" two days ago. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz See here. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Walker Hair Typing System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources are bad:

• "Curlcentric" - looks to just be mostly trying to sell you something

• "Women Health Info Blog" - is, well, a blog, one that looks to be by a "Prof. Dr. Gayane Dolyan Descornet" and seems to check out( maybe they deserve their own article? I see this so they've been around for a while) but is still basically just a self-published blog.(from my understanding we wouldn't cite a totally self published blog by Neil Degrasse Tyson on astromy related stuff afterall)

• Oprah.com - Yea totally not a problematic source to have your boss promote your system

• studio2121 - 404'd, but is regardless just literally an actual hair salon

this leaves the two podcasts and probably the strongest sources for the existence of this article being 99% Invisible and "The Stoop", haven't heard of the latter before, but it looks like something that could probably get its own article but just hasn't if it's press and awards page is to be believed

Anyway I'm basically arguing that everything but these two podcasts are bad sources, that leads into a bit of a more nebulous issue, that being that the system is basically considered bunk (yes, I know that a Reddit thread isn't the greatest of evidence, but I honestly don't know that much about this subject) or at least highly divisive on technical grounds (also supposedly racial grounds, but I don't really see it), and I only dived into this rabbithole because I saw this classification chart on the Hair article, and it just seemed so.....unscientific? I'm not sure, but I feel like this only exists as a page because someone attached to someone famous came up with it.

If this is successfully deleted, I'd also call for the nuking of Hair#Classification_systems for similar grounds, because unlike the main article that section isn't cited at all and neither is whatever the "FIA" system is. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: Note for other editors, the nominator seems to be mass nominating articles for deletion after being temporarily blocked and then warned of a permanent block for disruptive editing (see their talk page). I will assume good faith that they are learning the rules.

Comment 2:I wrote the article after listening to the 99% Invisible episode, I'll work on adding more references to resolve the issue, please give me a few days to do this before adding your feedback as once I add the additional refs your comments will be out of date. Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Cummings, I see that you have added more references, but they don't seem to me to be very reliable ones, as well as addressing the issues I brought up with the prior references used. Though yes I'm a newer editor so a second opinion on the reliability of the current references might be warranted, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this regard. Hopefully you can address those in your next edit to the page. Akaibu (talk) 14:39, 18 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!} 21:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are reliable sources: Conde Nast's Allure (magazine), Byrdie (part of Dotdash Meredith), and Hairdressers Journal[3] (from Professional Beauty Group) seems a fairly major trade publication. Plus there are research papers. And WP:BIAS: articles primarily relevant to black women suffer due to lack of interest from WP editors, uncertainty about what's a reliable source, etc, as well as prejudice that such topics are unencyclopedic/trivial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was done before this nomination. In addition to sources already in the article (including the ones added today or yesterday), here are some others that come up even in a brief Google search:
  • Glamour: [4]
  • Essence: [5]
  • GQ: [6]
  • Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition: [7]
  • ChemRxiv: [8]

So it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus here. An additional review of newly added or located sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. Seems to be promoting a scholarly database and no independent sources turned up by a before search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Latin America, and Caribbean. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is part of a class assignment. It is still in progress, so please don't delete. JuliaerodriguezUNH (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First, tell your professor that your grade should not depend upon whether or not you successfully write a Wikipedia article that avoids deletion, because that is out of your control. Second, anything moved out of draft space into the realm of articles is fair game for a deletion debate. Third, if no reliable sources talk about this database, then we can't have an article about it here. Fourth, you've basically copied the original website. For example, it says a virtual archive of over 200 primary sources along with introductions based on the latest scholarly findings, while you wrote a virtual archive containing over 200 primary documents, each accompanied by introductions informed by the latest scholarly research. It says, We hope the database will be useful for teaching, research, or general interest purposes for viewers curious about the history of science. You wrote, This resource is designed to support teaching, research, and general interest, catering to those eager to explore the region's scientific history. It says, For centuries, novelists, politicians, investors, and tourists have looked at Latin America and the Caribbean as an extraordinary place of natural wealth and diverse human populations. You wrote, For centuries, Latin America and the Caribbean have been viewed as regions of natural wealth and diverse populations, attracting explorers and scientists. To be blunt, this is plagiarism by close copying. That's bad. Very bad. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As you may have guessed, this is my first time doing Wiki anything. My intent was to make the article accessible for my classmates to edit - I did not realize that it went public into a space outside of our class group for the public to view. As such, I have deleted all text..

  Obviously that is on me, chalk this up to a learning experience.

  I requested to move it back to the draft space and I was not allowed to. Is that, is that because it is pending deletion or user error on my part? I just want to know whether to make edits to this draft or begin a new page.

  Thanks for the criticism/help. Traviscnason (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving an article while a deletion discussion is open is generally frowned upon, just because it confuses the situation. If you want to make further edits, you can do those on the article where it is now. I advise two things: start by listing the references that aren't the database itself, and put more work into writing in your own words. The first is necessary because we need references like that to show that the topic merits an article, and the second is necessary to avoid copyright problems. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, so that whatever text is needed for the class assignment can be readded without harm. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TeleZapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced article and has been tagged as such since 2011. Very little information to be found, one review but mostly just adverts. Nthep (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Although the article doesn't have any sourcing to speak of, that's because it's very old. I'm coming in at a Keep after finding some hits for this in books and magazines on a Google Books search. Andre🚐 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. The Wall Street Journal wrote about it. Here's another news source attributed to "AP Technology Writer" and also published here. I'm not sure about the usability of the rest of these, but in case they're useful, it's Mentioned in this book, andthis one and this one. It was discussed in a congressional committee hearing and a book on marketting refrom. It's listed in this index. McYeee (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then please add the sources to the article. Most of those you have listed are paywalled or geo-locked to me, so I can't read them to add them. Nthep (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nthep: You can use Archive for that. GrabUp - Talk 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  most of them aren't archived. Nthep (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still no refs in article. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NEXISTS, this is not a valid deletion rational. McYeee (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Reference added. Interesting and relevant bit of tech from the telephone age. Lexlex (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lamar Lady Cardinals softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a run-of-the-mill college softball team that compiled a mediocre 26–25 record, won no championships and did not advance to the playoffs or have other notable accomplishments. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources and is based instead on databases sources and/or routine press releases from non-independent, captive sources such as the school and conference websites. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cookiemonster attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Standalone vulnerabilities are rarely notable on their own. While this particular vulnerability boasts of a impressive list of "affected parties", to me it just seems to be a misconfiguration/quirk of the HTTPS protocol (of which there a fair few) that then got discussed on BugTraQ and then later demoed at DEFCON.

Coming to the notability, while there is coverage from The Register and Information Week during 2008 and 2009, I don't think the vulnerability has recieved sustained coverage since. As such, I think it has failed the 10 year test and isn't notable for inclusion. (Also cc @Utopes since this is a contested BLAR) Sohom (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; this existed as a redirect to Session hijacking for a few months. As nom points out, standalone vulnerabilities are rarely notable on their own. That being said, it was not a helpful redirect to Session hijacking either, as people who are looking for information on this vulnerability will not receive any of the pertinent information in their search, and "cookiemonster" is wholly unmentioned at the target as it was. I restored the article in its pre-BLAR state and suggested AfDing or merging as applicable, depending on desire for this topic. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Session hijacking#Exploits. Notability is not temporary, and while it only received a flurry of coverage before mostly fading out, the coverage that did get generated is substantial and detailed. It's also been mentioned in some books in the years since. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:DigitalIceAge.--cyclopia^speak! 10:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commotion Ltd v Rutty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google Scholar lists 40+ references to this decision; it set an important precedent apparently. The article does not discuss its importance. I agree that's an odd image. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added several refs to the article. Google Books shows this case is cited by a number of books. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a too-long quote. Can I snip it down? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cut down on the extraneous matters in the two long quote. I’d love for someone to add in more cases and books that cited this case. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Harry Welter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tragic event with routine short-term coverage. Does not meet the notability guideline on events. Sam Sailor 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Minnesota. Sam Sailor 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion and WP:TNT. There are so many typographical errors that it’s disturbing. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Kablammo (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Ross (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will have coverage in Scottish newspapers. Competed foryears at the top level of his sport, even if he wasn't successful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there are sources in Scotland, then at least one containing IRS SIGCOV must be added to the article for this to be kept. Vaguewaving at sources is not a valid option. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced a number of sources below from searching the Google Newspapers archive. In response to your staterment that they must be added to the article for this to be kept I think WP:NEXIST gives a different impression, particularly Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. I do not take this to mean that the sources should be currently in the article for us to vote Keep, since the sources do exist. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:24, 26 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!} 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a trophy named after him [9] as well as Newspaper coverage that does infact exist if we do due diligence [10][11][12][13] Including being a headline [14][15] and was referred to as "the greatest darts player come from the north of Scotland" at his death [16][17], so he is infact referenced in Scottish newspapers. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently located sources would be helpful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MeJew movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another AI-generated hoax by User:Jeaucques Quœure. #MeJew was a Sundance Film Festival panel and does not appear to be an actual movement or awareness campaign. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Judaism, Israel, and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax insofar as the article as it exists attests a broad social movement that doesn't actually exist by misinterpreting the name of one Sundance panel. Jeaucques Quœure also created wikt:MeJew at Wiktionary. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I found the Sundance source and a review of the panel discussion. There was a tweet about this from the Orthodox Jewish Public Affairs Council and it did appear in the Jewish Telegraph. But it's not enough for WP:GNG and outside of the panel discussion there isn't anything else about it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete lacking notability and possibly a hoax. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2023 Sundance Film Festival: sources on the page and plenty of independent coverage available online indicate that this is not a hoax and received some attention. Not opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a hoax! https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/2023-sundance-film-festival-announce-beyond-film-conversations/ https://www.indiewire.com/news/festivals/israel-representation-panel-palestinian-protest-sundance-same-time-1234944791/ https://jewinthecity.com/2023/01/jew-in-the-city-hosts-historic-panel-at-sundance-film-festival/ etc. (Jew in the City is another possible target for this in case it is redirected) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources all support what I wrote - #MeJew was a Sundance Film Festival panel and does not appear to be an actual movement or awareness campaign. Flounder fillet (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But you claimed it was a hoax and my! vote is for a merge. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"#MeJew" exists, the "#MeJew movement" does not, and everything in this article other than the sentence At the 2023 Sundance Film Festival, a panel discussed how Jewish characters are often depicted through stereotypical or inauthentic lenses. is false. This is a hoax. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Wording, even (or rather mostly) the title of the article, and statements may need rework, cleanup etc (or the page needs a redirect to its original context, as my !vote suggests) but this is not what is generally called a hoax. The word is misleading. Hoax is CSD territory, this is not, as existing coverage shows.

"#MeJew"=a response to the underrepresentation and misrepresentation of Jews in Hollywood and media. It focuses on fighting antisemitic tropes, ensuring accurate portrayals of Jewish identity, and addressing the exclusion of Jewish voices from their own stories" is NOT false.

It calls for Jews, especially observant ones, to be authentically represented in film and television rather than being portrayed through external perspectives that reinforce harmful clichés, such as controlling, greedy, or unattractive personas." is NOT false.

It "criticizes casting practices where non-Jewish actors are chosen to play Jewish characters, overlooking the depth of Jewish experience, culture, and identity. An example raised during the discussion was Helen Mirren being cast to play Golda Meir, which sparked conversations about authenticity and cultural sensitivity in Hollywood." is NOT false.

See sources.

So basically remove the word "movement" and change it for the panel/participants/whatever you deem right and everything is sourced and correct. Calling it a hoax is therefore very exaggerated and misleading in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between a panel and a "movement" is very wide. Having an article on a single panel discussion is giving undue weight to a minor one-time event. Calling it a movement is absolutely a hoax. Toughpigs (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my !vote is for a merge so that I partially agree with that. But, again, I disagree on ’absolutely a hoax’. Any panel who launches such a hashtag probably hopes it will end in a movement so that, although it is not an actual movement and the gap may be wide, it is not as if someone was trying to make us believe something totally untrue and that we cannot easily check and correct accordingly. Most of what is on the page is true and sourced, I have no further comments. If anyone wants to make a point and truly believes it’s indeed technically a hoax, nominate for CSD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably hopes it will end in a movement so that, although it is not an actual movement and the gap may be wide, it is not as if someone was trying to make us believe something totally untrue

That's exactly what it means! Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Women's Futsal Euro 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term "UEFA Women's Futsal Euro 2025" was never officially used to designate the qualifiers, so the page should be deleted. Redirecting it could cause confusion, as it might imply that the 2025 edition refers to the qualifiers, which is incorrect.

Therefore, I believe the page redirect should be deleted.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. User:Lunar Spectrum96
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - should be discussed at WP:RfD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The nominator initially blanked the article at this title with a speedy deletion tag; it was only redirected when the CSD was declined. Since this is effectively a contested BLAR (as the nominator clearly objects to any redirect as well as the article itself), I have restored the article (apologies if this is incorrect in any way); any attempt to shift this to RfD might have ended up coming to that conclusion anyway. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UEFA Women's Futsal Championship, doesn't need a separate article. GiantSnowman 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, UEFA Clearly stated here that UEFA Women's Futsal EURO is to have an expanded eight-team finals, and will be held every four years with the next edition in 2027, if that's not clear enough that 2025 Edition doesn't exist I don't what will.Lunar Spectrum96 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monolith Arms P-12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable one off prototype of a gun; I can't find any coverage that meets GNG criteria, and the only sources are blog or forum posts. CoconutOctopus talk 20:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CoconutOctopus talk 20:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vels FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, shows no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and India. Demt1298 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - the article claims they are playing in the 2024–25 I-League, that is not reflected in that article. Nothing at Soccerway. GiantSnowman 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Agree with comments and votes above. RangersRus (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SugarGh0st RAT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the references are not reliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have added more references Arwenz (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It seems like enough of the references check out, but I think more references and content are needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:13, 19 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!} 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG Pass , has reliable sources, she is a national level women leader - Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a youth movement of a single party in a state but exists in more than one state [18][19] . Spworld2 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can be considered in WP:GNG category, Spworld2 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:GNG has abundant references proving it This article is a national level office older. Former office holder of Women's Youth Party, she was a former office holder at the national level of an important student movement in Kerala. All these can be considered in the WP:POLITICIAN category as a reference basis. Reference: [20] (The New Indian Express), [21] (Mathrubhumi), [22]] (The New Indian Express)

, [23] (Malayala Manorama). A article who is popular in Kerala as a Muslim woman has won the award. Also a well-known Muslim feminist in Kerala [24] [25][26]. She can be considered as an Advocate/Lawyer, she is one of the women lawyers in Kerala High Court [27] Office holder at Municipality / Taluk level [28] Reference [29] , [30] (The Hindu) and she can be considered Women in positions of power [31] [32] Influencer (Muslim women political influencer) in Kerala [33] [34] - Spworld2 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We acknowledge that the subject does not fit within the politician category (WP:NPOL). However, it clearly meets the criteria for the WP:GNG. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not passing WP:NPOL. It’s Prima facie about an activist in her party with literally thousands of other people. Being the woman’s chair of a youth organization is the picture of up and coming political volunteer. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How did one in ten thousand become an office holder at the national level? There is a source for that, there is evidence of people voting and winning at the municipality/taluk level, so how can you be one in 10,000 as you say? My little doubt Spworld2 (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Non notable activist who fails NPOL and GNG.202.83.51.246 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The user with the IP address (202.83.51.246) discussed above is a first time wikipedia editor, and like other experience users, feels like WP:SOCK----- Spworld2 (talk) 10:04, 25 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!} 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas: The Original Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Both of the references in the article are dead links, and the most significant coverage I was able to find is in an article by Pitchfork ([35]) which has some sentences about the mixtape. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions such as [36]. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Young Maylay. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Young Maylay per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM. मल्ल (talk) 16:50, 28 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!} 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Helvecia sawmill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:notability and verifiability – a search on google did not give any results about this sawmill (except some photographs uploaded to Commons by the creator of this article). I could not find any mention to this sawmill on San Fernando websites either. The article contains only one proper source. Fma12 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be redirected to San Fernando, Buenos Aires, Fma12 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "proper source" is shown on Wikimedia Commons, and it is sufficiently detailed, to keep the article. Pedro Tamagni is mentioned in the lower half of the right column on page 2376 of the Boletín . La Helvecia, owned by Pedro Tamagni, was among the three most important sawmills. NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the source you show is a reliable one. The question is: is it enough to make this article "notable"? Fma12 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, together with the more recent reception in Boletin, this seems to be the most noteworthy sawmill in the area. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAE Retail Benchmarking Study 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see enough notability.-- فيصل (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. فيصل (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot major (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This stub has remained unsourced since 2013 and has remained a WP:DICDEF. A Google Books search finds several works that mention that such and such person was a "pilot-major" of an early modern European trade or exploration fleet, but no work defining or describing this title or occupation, which means that there is no basis for an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I've added a list of pilots major. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is also unsourced, and therefore does not resolve the WP:V and WP:N issues of this article. It also conflates real persons and fictional characters. Sandstein 06:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources and additional info added. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but I still don't see the basis for an article here. The lead sentences, which purport to define the topic, remain unsourced: "A pilot major or pilot-major is a chief navigator of a ship or fleet. This person is usually experienced in naval exploration and has distinguished himself as both a sailor and a voyager." What you did find a source for was the use of the same term in Spain for something different, namely, a government office with responsibility for cartography. What we now have is a list of people with a position we cannot define, and a description of an unrelated government office. That's not an article. Sandstein 13:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources disagree with you; they call various non-officeholders pilots major. (Also, put the asterisk last after colons, otherwise it serves no purpose.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I have split off info to Pilot Major of Spain. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, the spinoff for the government office makes sense and seems to be reasonably well sourced. But this still leaves us with a stub about the different sense of "pilot-major" as the "chief navigator of a ship or fleet", and we do not have a source for this meaning of the term, only a list of people who have been called "pilot-major" in sources. Sandstein 07:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Maritime pilot, which currently makes no mention of this office at all. BD2412 T 02:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seafood Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a minor chain of restaurants that fails to meet WP:NCORP. There are some restaurant reviews online, but no WP:SIGCOV, no evidence of awards won, or similar notable coverage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Their website has a press section[37] which includes a detailed Guardian review and a link to a paywalled Financial Times review which I'm unable to judge the value of. It's got mentions in the London Evening Standard[38] and Amsterdam Mag/Amsterdam Now[39] but not in depth. Coverage in The Caterer magazine[40], a long-running publication. The generic name makes searching harder. I'm unable to check Dutch-language sources, but the lack of a page on Dutch-language WP is a red flag. But close to notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Links to The Guardian review [41] and Financial Times review [42]. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am attaching more significant sources which are not included in the article, [43], [44], [45], [46]. In WP:PAYWALL, it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I believe that instead of completely rejecting those sources we should seek help from Resource Exchange. - Snubvane (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. THREE articles in het Eindhovens Dagblad and TWO articles in Het Parool count pull this chain well over the NCORP bar. The TWO British reviews also count toward notability—one of these apparently. The GNG is met in a heartbeat. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you add those articles as suitable references? I'm not a Dutch speaker, so can't do it myself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasta Faruq Kanarwey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP of a Kurdish veteran, largely unsourced, lacking any clear indication of notability and based on related sources. Kurdish speakers may be able to find better sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Syria, and Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Added more lists in hopes of reaching some Kurdish speakers, but the existing sources in the article appear to be dependent hence do not contribute to notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all three references are from the same [[WP:RS|source of questionable reliability. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perky Little Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant coverage from reliable sources for this game. Wombat Trap is a blog. Nintenderos, Nintendo Insider, and GoNintendo are unreliable sources reporting (mostly republishing) on the game's release. TheVideoGameLibrary and Kotaku entries are database sources that do not amount to significant coverage. The PlayAsia article is a primary press release. QuietCicada chirp 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page creator had been creating pages dedicated to video games with explicit content that did not demonstrate notability on their own. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Delete I have created many game articles and this was probably the only one where I had significant doubt. Still, I went for it at the end, perhaps with the thought that more sources could come in the future. But you're right, it's a lost cause so yes it can be deleted. Sceeegt (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This game doesn't have independent reliable sources for WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Deep as Sorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A former redirect that's been reverted back into an article. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but got a page full of lists of the songs on the album. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Venture Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is basically nothing but advertising copy and will need to be line-by-line rewritten if it is to be retained. Additionally, leaving aside press releases, I can find very little coverage of it in anything that could be called a reliable source. It gets passing mentions in articles about the NJ venture capital sector and reports on funding rounds in which it has participated, but actual focused coverage is very thin on the ground. Where it does exist, it tends to be puff pieces (often more about one of its partners than about the company itself (Example 1, Example 2)) or just short rephrasing of press releases by industry sites (E1, E2). These six links, by the way, constitute almost everything I could find on Google News about this company.

So from a combo of WP:TNT and dubious notability, I suggest deletion. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, New Jersey, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pet AntiDionysius. An encyclopedia article never starts with a literal stock quote. It goes downhill from there. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Mealey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 'Your search - "Natasha Mealey" -wikipedia - did not match any news results.' - Google concurs about the lack of notability. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I get some hits. But the top three are Facebook, Instagram and Linkedin. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Demt1298 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject is a model as portrayed from the article. And then what happen next? Any award, anything to establish their notability? I can't seem to find any right now. This should be deleted as there is nothing to make it stand as per WP:SIGCOV Tesleemah (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the model is not significant. I did my own research and.. zero BoraVoro (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not one google news hit, which is highly unusual for someone from UK. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Zhakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Retired Russian actor. WP:NACTOR significance is shown. The article was removed from Russian Wikipedia [47].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This stub is nearly incomprehensible and seems merely to mention random facts from his career. It would be better to delete, and if this person is notable, then someone will eventually write an article about him on Russian Wikipedia, which then could be translated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Leaf (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not demonstrate the significance of the album. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Valery Leontiev as is the usual procedure for a non-notable album by a notable musician. At least in English, I can find no pro reviews or any other commentary about the album beyond social media and self-published sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uvolit Zhoru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The correspondence between WP:MOVIE is not shown and is extremely doubtful.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:25, 26 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significance was found for WP:NACTOR in the article.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:28, 26 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a well-known actor in Germany, with a long career in film and television, and I see no strong reason to delete his page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has had a long acting career, appearing in many films and television series. In the article mentions only a small portion of them.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Forget Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not demonstrate the significance of the song. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev. --Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:33, 26 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Valery Leontiev. Note that the article has a link to the WP Russia article about the parent album, which itself is nearly blank and totally unreferenced. If someone happen's to search for the title, they can be sent to the singer's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre de documentation collégiale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG, a WP:BEFORE search shows up primary sources, database entries and unreliable sources. CSD A7 objected as the subject "potentially comes under Educational Institutes" Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Canada. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Kézako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/fiche-1529-zoe-kezako.html; also significant mentions here: https://www.animationmagazine.net/2021/12/people-on-the-move-teamtos-kouper-named-personality-of-the-year-milano-heads-rai-kids-more/ ("winner of the 2004 Pulcinella Award at Cartoons on the Bay and an Emmy nominee") (Emmy nomination as Best international Children's program confirmed by other sources). If judged insufficient, redirect to List of French animated television series#Comedy (listed there; with the nomination information and sources) (Also is a book series; same title) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avadh Girls' Degree College, Lucknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. I propose redirecting to University of Lucknow per WP:ATD, as the article fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Jai Narain Misra PG College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. I propose redirecting to University of Lucknow per WP:ATD, as the article fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National P.G. College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. I propose redirecting to University of Lucknow per WP:ATD, as the article fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Lucknow no significant coverage and The Times of India is not a relaible source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TVJ Singing Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm doubtful in this article, it is lack of references fails in WP:BANDMEMBER, citing a unreliable sources fails in WP:RS. Royiswariii Talk! 15:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Royiswariii Talk! 15:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the statement "In May 2024, they were recognized and awarded by the Excellent Filipino Awards as the Promising Female Group of the Year" can be cited independently then I might reconsider per WP:Notability (people) Tesleemah (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I have been searching for any coverage of this group from reliable sources, but there seems to be none. The article also seems to be a case of WP:COPYPASTE, with 87% similarity from this fandom wiki according to this comparison, failing both WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM. AstrooKai (Talk) 15:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldinho (footballer, born 1945) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sign of notability. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – There are some online sources [48], [49], and considering the period and number of matches, there must be more offline. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG and arguing WP:TMBS here feels pretty weak, especially since one of the sources is somebody's substack. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For players from the 60s-80s in major European leagues, it is inevitable that there is nothing in local newspapers and compendiums. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Inevitable that there is something, probably? Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Show some WP:COMMONSENSE. 200+ apps for Vitoria, a major club. GiantSnowman 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I believe this is a valid WP:STUB article, for some reason, some editors don't believe in stub articles anymore. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sebiba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and poorly sourced. The article was deleted last week and recreated by the same editor with some minor cosmetic changes (image in the infobox). M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "2024 October 26" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "2024 October 26" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "2024 October 26" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:

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

  Sources

  1. "清水灣道8號 擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.

     The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."

     From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."

     The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"

     From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of ​​the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."

  2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號 高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).

     The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"

     From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."

  3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.

     The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"

     From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."

  4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.

     The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"

     From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."

  5. "彩虹站新貴 清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.

     The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"

     From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah Keep the article Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navyug Kanya Mahavidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reverted redirect. A WP:BEFORE search reveals sources about the University of Lucknow. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Lucknow: Your redirect was correct. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has been found to establish this college as notable enough for a standalone article. It fails WP:NSCHOOL, so it’s better to redirect per WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There many article on Wikipedia article who cannot standalone but they are R. P. Rastogi, Girish Chandra Tripathi, like these are many as these you cannot delete this than as a matter of fact this page can be created bcz it has university has many afflliated college then please delete too Mahila Maha Vidyalaya. they also No significant coverage in this as they are not notable enough for a standalone article. Raghav 1048 (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Raghav 1048: Please don’t use WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you believe a page fails our notability guidelines, you are free to nominate it for AfD; there is no restriction on doing so. There might be thousands of pages that don’t meet the standards for stand-alone articles, but they remain here because no one has nominated them. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Lucknow per nom. RangersRus (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Sotomayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No claim to notability; I redirected this to RuPaul's Drag Race season 1 but was reverted. Seeking wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. I appreciate User:MiitomoChris's attempt to expand this article about one of the few RuPaul's Drag Race contestants without a Wikipedia biography. I have expanded the article significantly based on simple online searches, and I can tell there is much more to add. As someone who has promoted several bios about Drag Race contestants to Good article status, I am satisfied with the amount of secondary coverage received and believe eligibility criteria are met. There's coverage spanning over a decade in a variety of publications, including multiple articles specifically focused on the subject. I see details about the subject's acting/entertainment work both in and out of drag, not to mention many updates about their drag career and impact as a season 1 contestant within a tremendously successful television franchise. The current article has just a couple sentences about her time on Drag Race. This entry needs expanding, not deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well expand it then. As it stands there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that this person is worth more than a line in the relevant Drag Race article. If there is one thing I loathe it is people who slap together stublets and claim on no evidence at all that the subject is notable. Walk the walk, please.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article has been improved to the point where it looks fine per GNG and seems expandable as well.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 03:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't seem to find what makes it notable to pass WP:GNG perhaps those voting keep should share more light to why it can stand on the online encyclopedia Tesleemah (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page created by a new editor which was accepted at AfC in good faith by a reviewer who it appears does not have an extensive background in the science area. Following a brief discussion on the talk page, there are Toosoon, Notability, OR, NPOV and Dubious issues. Some more information added to AfD page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curtesy ping of @Johnjbarton, RangersRus, Jähmefyysikko, ReyHahn, and Cadaik:. As nominator I think there are multiple issues:

1. WP:TOOSOON, the article is based upon a 2023 paper and a 2024 paper, where the 2024 paper is the only one that cites the 2023 paper.
2. WP:N general lack of other sources to indicate that the neolism is notable.
3. WP:OR large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor.
4. WP:NPOV page suggests that the approach is only relevant for low speeds, but fails to mention other issues. To quote from the abstract of the first source "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." These hidden claims go far beyond what the text reveals.
5. WP:DUBIOUS without being specific, the article models diffraction from an edge and two slits without stating that it is giving a new, unsourced interpretation of the classic wave–particle duality. This is stated more clearly at the end of the open source code referenced in the page " It is plausible to assume that such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects. For more on this topic, see https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23055584.v2". Wikipedia is not the place for such hidden claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Please remain objective. It is not relevant what you personally believes. There are convincing, comprehensible and unconcealed facts, evidence and simulation results.

I would now like to address the various points:

1. WP:TOOSOON / WP:N: The two aspects are connected and cannot be denied. I have read the guidelines and it is true that it is too early for a self-standing article. I therefore suggest a merge into Weber electrodynamics.
2. WP:NPOV "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." The citation is from the abstract of one of the cited articles, which was published in a scientific journal and was apparently considered appropriate by the reviewers and the editors. This text cannot be found in the Wikipedia article. Where is neutrality violated when a source is cited?
3. WP:OR: "large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor." This should be explained in more detail.
4. WP:DUBIOUS: Your raised objections do not refer to the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia page shows examples of interference and diffraction from a classical point of view, where an electromagnetic wave is emitted by a dipole antenna and then reflected by a barrier of secondary dipoles. This is a common model. The source code is publicly available and cited. The preprint which you mention is not cited on the Wikipedia page and can be found only at the very end on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME. The preprint is there only linked as an interesting side note. Specifically, the website says "... this example exceeds the usual field of application of electrical engineering considerably. It is an interesting by-product which arose during the development ..." The vast majority of the examples on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME verify the predictions of Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics by means of known classical effects. This ensures that not only the theoretical derivation is correct (this is performed by mathematical proofs), but also that the practical results are convincing.

Cadaik (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this page is about a couple of 2023/2024 papers which are barely cited, this is far from being WP:NOTABLE and indicates WP:RECENTISM or at least WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. No review article on the topics exists for the moment. I would suggest not merging with Weber electrodynamics as the topics seems to be unrelated and Weber–Maxwelll electrodynamics is not used in the literature to refer to Weber electrodynamics.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge We have many, many instances where a newish peer-reviewed primary source is cited in support of one aspect of a notable topic. However in such cases the amount and breadth of the content needs to be in proportion to the impact of the source which in this case is very limited. The actual impact is the only thing that matters, not the potential, truthfulness, wonderfulness etc. I don't think this topic is bogus though a brief look at the cited authors other work leads me to think they have limited background outside of computational EM. Therefore I don't expect this topic to grow into something significant. In any case I would encourage @Cadaik to contribute to existing articles with more focus on reviews and secondary sources to get a feel for Wikipedia-ness. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the total lack of viable sources upon which an encyclopedia article could be built. None of the content is worth merging, for the same reason. Magnetism is an MDPI journal, meaning that it has no value. (Likewise, though of less importance here, the translations of historical sources are published by "Apeiron Montreal", a book imprint associated with a now-defunct fringe journal.) And to be polite, any claim like such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects faces a very steep hill to climb before it can be taken remotely seriously.XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  XOR'easter I was not able to find your quote "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" in the article. As far as I can tell this is quote from Ldm1954 referring to a source which is also not cited by the article. I don't think it is fair to discredit the article on the basis of a blog post not cited or discussed in the article and on a topic unrelated to the article. The software demonstrations of wave diffraction do not appear to me to be notable as they appear quite similar to ripple tank models. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnjbarton, the quote is verbatim from the bottom of reference 16, OpenWME, cited in the article and used in the reinterpretation of diffraction. All the Figures except the first were created with OpenWME (trace to the media wiki source). @XOR'easter usage was correct. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" => The accent is on the word might here. "might" does not mean "are". The argumentation is then presented in a lengthy preprint. Science means to walk through the world with open eyes and to study interesting things when one notices them. It must always be possible to post interesting things. Cadaik (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because there are no reliable secondary sources which we could use to verify the content (per WP:V). This is even more important, since revamping classical electrodynamics would be an WP:extraordinary accomplishment which would need strong evidence. (even if there are limits with regard to relativistic speeds) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes. Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to walk through the world with open eyes or post interesting things. Science, if at all done, should be done somewhere very far from here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course not. This statement was referring to a post somewhere in one of the secondary sources. It has nothing to do with the WP article. The article discusses a topic of classical non-relativistic electrodynamics and not quantum mechanics. Cadaik (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is already adequately covered insofar as it might be sourceable, rendering what is not unsourceable redundant. —Quondum 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is 1/2 step away from original research, or what we call synthesis. In any secondary or tertiary source, every sentence and paragraph must have a citation. We just went through this on another AfD. If you don’t understand that, then you shouldn’t be writing or reviewing articles here. Every student at a community college should know that. Having taught secondary school physics and having written physics articles myself, which were peer reviewed but then rejected for publication, I can state that this is just too cutting edge for an encyclopedia. I can’t, however, figure whether it’s a correct. It’s mostly unsourced, so I can’t evaluate the subject matter. If someone wants to submit this to a journal, they can, or ArXiv, or a blog, or if really inspired they can present it at a SF con, but just not here. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian In my opinion there is no need to characterize the editor efforts here in harshly negative personal terms. The presentation is logical and clear. The sourcing here is quite a bit more extensive than most physics articles I have read and worked on. The bulk of the article is clearly derived from two peer reviewed papers by S. Kuhn; the IEEE should be considered a reliable peer review. Sure a few more paragraphs could have citations, but they would still point to the same two sources. That is the problem: this is basically a summary of on primary source. The issue as pointed out by the other posts here is the lack of secondary sources. Let's try to focus on content and not disparage editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Got it. My point was not to bite the newbie. The problem is to distinguish between types of sources. I’ll be more careful. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Johnson (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable darts player All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is only one source and one external link referenced in the entire article, and both lead to a "404 Not Found" error. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article was poorly sourced indeed, unfortunately Darts Database website was shut down, hence those links do not work any more. More links and available references have been provided, this player was (and will be) participating in World Championships and major PDC tournaments, I do not think marking him non-notable is fair here. If anything needs to be improved, let me know. DarthBob (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is still poorly sourced as none of the sources are significant coverage. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern about the quality of the sources. However, the sources used in the article, while they may not provide in-depth or exclusive coverage, do offer reliable information and verifiable facts. I specifically chose sources from different websites that are currently available.

  If you have suggestions for specific sources that offer more in-depth or significant coverage on this topic, I would be happy to consider incorporating them. DarthBob (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see the response below: This article was poorly sourced indeed, unfortunately Darts Database website was shut down, hence those links do not work any more. More links and available references have been provided, this player was (and will be) participating in World Championships and major PDC tournaments, I do not think marking him non-notable is fair here. DarthBob (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The additional sources do not contain IRS SIGCOV and/or are routine (e.g. match recaps). Articles from PDC or WDF are not independent. We really want sources that provide SIGCOV of the player's background. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better sourced and up to date than half of the Wikipedia pages now, it is basically impossible to find any old sources, since darts are a sport, whose media coverage improved only in last years. Darts is quite a simple sport, articles analysing a match throw by throw just does not exist. This seems yet again like an on-going battle against darts articles and profiles, even an effort to improve these articles is not welcomed and a valuable article marked to delete. DarthBob (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't significant coverage of players in the past, then those players by definition are not notable. GNG requires sources with IRS SIGCOV, not just reliable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a significant coverage of a Darts Player or tournament? What needs to be there? Because articles describing a match throw by throw really do not exist. This discussion was here before, articles deleted, but there was conclusion, that these sources were sufficient, Darts Players who competed on World Championships belong on Wikipedia and it stopped. So I do not understand, why is this happening again. DarthBob (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely don't want match recaps, which are generally routine and primary. In-depth analysis of the player's career, spanning multiple tournaments, is what we're looking for. This is what's required by the guideline for athletes, which was recently strengthened to eliminate participation-based criteria from all sports. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To continue review of new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holographic direct sound printing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article based upon a 1 month old paper. While it has minor attention in pop science press, its Altmetric of 76 is not particularly high (it would need 200-300). Page is almost completely promo of research from a single group at Concardia University. Considering how active additive manufacturing currently is, much much more is required. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your science. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my science. I found about this method of 3D printing in the newspapers and I thought it probably deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Arwenz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Primary sources and churned press releases are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure - for me the difficulty is that this is WP:TOOSOON (yes I know that's an essay that's not about scientific research, it just seems appropriate) so we don't know how much lasting importance there is about this discovery. I think an argument can be made for !keep given it has been peer reviewed, !delete because it is really just a small number of scientists saying it is important or !draft on the basis it might soon be shown to be important. I'm not sure how to parse it. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: it is very, very rare to have articles just because they are reviewed, we require extensive secondary sources. TOOSOON is very commonly applied to scientific research. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rouba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP of a singer-songwriter, largely unsourced, who seems to have turned their hand to many things in life without being clearly notable for any of them. The Arabic article isn’t any help with sourcing unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Lebanon, and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 11:09, 26 October
• Delete, does not seem to be anything to support any claim of notability. As noted, largely unsourced. And in at least one case, tagged as such for a decade. I'd copyedit this lump of vaimglorious guff to the bone if I didn't think it was clearly headed for the exit.TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG with just two references cited, of which is not opening. Let's talk about passing Notability for musician some other time. Tesleemah (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per the above. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Rawlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bio of a successful businessman who does not appear to me to be notable. Somewhat promotional in tone, it recounts ROTM career moves but does not seem to be anything more than a piece of PR. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Crosscurrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Current article fails notability guidelines, WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. On the New York Times bestseller list but I couldn't find a review from a reliable source. Screen Rant article has what I would consider a passing mention: [54] Suggesting a redirect to List of Star Wars books as an alternative to deletion if no review or other piece of significant coverage is found. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Could not find anything anywhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Star Wars books (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humiston family murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tragic, but fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. If in future this somehow is covered in depth long term we can recreate it. CoconutOctopus talk 09:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete familicides very rarely fulfill NEVENT, and when they do it's usually obvious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already a page Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged that obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is other family murder pages, why delete this? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, as I only voted delete per there already being a page and since other family murders with even lower deaths, etc. such as an earlier one this year still have an article. I would only vote delete if no new information comes out or coverage stops. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims is irrelevant in determining notability; the crossbow case you link is certainly notable as it was covered in depth and continually in the media (especially as the victims were the family of a media personality). I do not believe this article is notable and that it fails WP:TOOSOON and NOTNEWS. CoconutOctopus talk 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event litteraly just happened and more information is still coming out, and you still want to delete it? I would say give it a while before you delete it Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until such time as the courts make a decision about whether this is a murder or not and decide to convict anyone for the deaths, or not. Without a conviction, Wikipedia should not even call this a murder as the accused should be presumed innocent. There is also a redirect that should be included in this discussion and treated the same way. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete I agree with CoconutOctopus's reasoning. Peaceray (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even have a Wikidata item! Peaceray (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josenid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After reviewing this BLP, I don't think it meets the criteria for either WP:NSINGER or GNG. WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper bylines. --Pitille02 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 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 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Statesmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references used in the article only provide short descriptions. toweli (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 14:02, 19 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!} 07:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Paley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent article which discuss about the subject in depth, fails WP:GNG. doesn’t received any special achievement or any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as the article creator, I'm not particularly invested in this one. I basically created the article as an (unsolicited and unrewarded) favour for his then-webmaster because I thought a wikilink from Ilizarov apparatus would be better than a link to his website there; see the conversations at User talk:Szlimblengthening and my early-2009 talk page archive. I only ended up with the relevant articles on my watchlist due to unhelpful edits. I don't think I would have created this article under the same circumstances today, at least without doing a very deep WP:BEFORE check first. Graham87 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with this !vote counting as a delete, in case that makes things easier. Graham87 (talk) 06:08, 30 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!} 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With an h-factor of 66 with the top two papers being solo author with 2041 & 1766 cites he passes WP:NPROF#C1. An award or two would help, but I think the case is clear enough plus there are not a gaggle of authors in the other well cited papers. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misaki Uemura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of significant and independent coverage. Nothing in ja:wiki either, and extremely weak claim to notability having played 1 game in Japan's second league. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Misaki Uemura is a rather common birth name in Japan that random namesakes may be found. Searching for this footballer's name in kanji might help, but we can't assume that to be the case. In its current state, the article is written like a directory and does not contain anything about what Uemura accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shogo Yoshizawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant and independent sources whatsoever, including in ja:wiki. Therefore no indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that retell a work of literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While this is impressively referenced, it has major problems. First of all is the scope - what is "retelling"? This term is not linked, nor defined. Effectively this is a very broad "list of song that have some connection to the literary work of fiction". The list is grossly incomplete when we consider religious works - it includes only a dozen or so songs that mention Bible, but I am sure we could find tens of thousands, plus more for Koran, Buddhist texts, etc. And then we come to the elephant in the room, which is the ORish nature of this (i.e. failure of WP:NLIST - is there a similar list in a RS? I don't see much, although I noticed this listicle from The Guardian in the sources: [55]). Note that it uses the term inspired (so.... "list of songs inspired by works of literature"?). Again, the super broad criteria is a problem. Is this about retelling, or being inspired, or what? Is any song that mentions a literary work or character to be included? This is just a gigantic list of trivia, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but rename (discuss move on TP). Sources about the set include https://www.radiox.co.uk/features/x-lists/books-that-inspired-musicians/ https://www.kerrang.com/the-17-greatest-songs-based-on-books https://classicsdujour.com/top-10-rock-songs-inspired-by-literature/ etc maybe split albums/songs....(also can be discussed on Tp) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a suggestion what the title should be? TompaDompa (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of albums based on literary works/List of songs based on literary works? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds like it could get very inclusive, possibly too broad per WP:SALAT. What WP:LISTCRITERIA did you have in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you add a notice or hatnote such as "only add songs/albums if you can provide a reliable source indicating their conception was based on a given literary work", that might be OK. The current page is not bad but should be trimmed: no sources=remove; myths with no associated given work (Icarus)=remove, and so on. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm. Looking at the current version, I spot two unsourced entries and fifteen entries with an empty "Author" field (which should correlate fairly well with "myths with no associated given work", as you put it). One would have to look closer at the sources and so on to be able to say for sure, but this suggests that there might not be very much content that should be trimmed by those criteria. At least, it's not obvious that such cleanup would result in a significant reduction in the number of entries. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did put some effort into finding citable sources for most of those shown several years ago. There may be a few entries that have been subsequently added by others that did not have citations added with them; I agree that those should be cited or removed. Some of the examples of those purged from the main page after not being able to find citations (after at least a cursory look) can be found here. KConWiki (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So two sources use the term "inspiration" (one "books that inspired musicians" and second, "songs inspired by literature") whereas the other is about "songs based on books". Ok, books and literature are the same, but inspiring and being based on are not necessarily the same concepts. One can be inspired by topic X and create work not relevant to it. That said, the lists seem to be about the same topic, and if their existence is good enough, so be it - although they do look somewhat listiclish to me. Also, this is about literature - are also going to have lists of songs inspired (based on?) by anime ([56]), video games ([57], [58]), films (oh wait List of songs based on a film...), comics ([59], [60])... This is fun, but still seems rather trivial to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While I concur with the notion that there are numerous examples of literature-based music omitted from this list (particularly those connected to religious texts, as noted above) I think that the WP users interested in either literature or (popular) music or both could find interest in a list such as this. I certainly agree that the elements of the list must be well-cited. I will also say that if we wanted to rename the article or re-word some of the (brief) descriptive text at the opening, that there could be some merit to that. Let's discuss further as appropriate, and thanks to all for their contributions to WP. KConWiki (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but retitle - I'm undecided on a viable title but that could be decided by the community in a separate move discussion. For the article itself, I appreciate to nominator's concerns but here we have references to serious analysis by reliable authors (some of the references, at least) who have studied how classic books inspired musicians. Meanwhile the list mixes up liteature, books, and mythology in some places but I consider that more of a cleanup issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since current comments lean on keeping, I've started a renaming discussion on talk: Talk:List_of_songs_that_retell_a_work_of_literature#Name. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs based on a film, where right now comments lean on deleting (the quality of that list is much worse than of the one discussed here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you; can we therefore consider this implies you are withdrawing this nomination? (and FWIW, I've started improving the list you mention). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now Autumn 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An IP address recently tried to redirect this, and was reverted. A notability tag is on the article. A WP:BEFORE search proved fruitless. An AfD discussion needs to be had. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No sources, Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Australia sometimes the IP address is right DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGlue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 19 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!} 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one press release mentioning this...whatever it is...could be found. As for the parent company, I can find websites and database entries for several entities named In4, but it's not clear any of them have any connection to the In4 in the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Taiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows that it also lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 05:26, 12 October 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 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Cuba, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For precisely the reasons presented in the nomination. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage. There is a BBC article [61]. There is also coverage before death, in 2022, for instance [62][63][64] He seems a prominent artist. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source is about his death, while the others are press releases about an album and tour. Not significant independent coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need the sources and significabt coverage to be before death of a person. BBC article has significant coverage, it has biography. There are also Cuban sources feom before his death. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as the article looks now, there is no encyclopedic significance at all. If kept, reliable sources need to me added to the article for notability. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First I want to mention that the article's notability is about the notability of the topic and amount of significant coverage, not the contents of the article. Second, I added contents. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant media coverage of his music career, only his death. Death does not automatically establish notability. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Article in Billboard covers his music career: "One of the most popular Cubaton artists (a genre that fuses reggaeton with traditional Cuban rhythms), El Taiger is known for his Cuban-rooted urban sound heard in songs such as “La Historia,” “El Papelito” and “Habla Matador.”" [65] BilboBeggins (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are reliable sources and there were more more sources, some from reliable sites, which were taken out of the article. Also, the nominator did not tell me about the nomination. Jeanette Lalo Camacho Martin (si?) 19:50, 12 October, 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: A quick online search suggests that subject's death is the only source of significant coverage and, therefore, not "highly significant" according to WP:1E. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not the only source of coverage, there are sources about his works [66] BilboBeggins (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also Independent article is before his death, it has significant coverage, so it's not One Event case [67]. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BilboBeggins WP:BLUDGEON. And for your persistent claims that any notable coverage of the subject existed before his death, it's still not in the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a problem that some votes do not use argumentation based on facts, I want to stress this fact.

  I added into article a 2017 Billboard reference about his song featured on the soundtrack of Fate of the Furious, breaking film. On this page I mentioned 2022 references. The Independent article is also technically before his death. There is also an article from today, so the coverage does not stop.

  Reliable sources call artist famous in Cuba.

  There are articles in BBC, Independent, ET about him. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - it seems the subject accomplished enough as a musician to pass the notability guideline, but at the same time the fact that so many of the referances in the article are about his death seems to be problematic. This source seems to cover his life more in-depth, will look for other references. It does at the moment seem that most of the citations fail WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added some content and references from sources that precede his death. Hopefully the article now passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the input. However, content about his religion, family members or his legal issues doesn't explain why the subject is notable as a musician. His discography has no articles, nor is there evidence of any awards or chart/notable label activity. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He collaborated with Enrique Iglesias and was part of the soundtrack of Fate of hhe Furious.

    This content prives that there is significant coverage.

    "His discography has no articles" — I am not sure what that means. There are sources fir his works. If you mean that there are no separate articles on his albums, it's not required. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs further consideration. First, the nominator is a very new editor who didn't inform the article creator. Also, it would be helpful to see a source review, especially given the additions by Inter&anthro to the article. As AFD regulars know, we don't base deletion decisions on the condition of the article at the time of the discussion but on the notabiity of the article subject. Sources do not have to be added to the article, they can be brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,there were many arguments based not on practices of AFDs.

But article was improved anyway, and the sources were added. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding nominator, I have looked at his other nominations and am worried.

Other artists from Latin America are nominated, at least one more reggaeton artist eas nominated. They use the same rationale.

I see another nomination of the person who recently died. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although we typically are against other stuff exists, there is actually a spanish language version of wikipedia and he has an article there. [68] . I am saying keep based upon significant coverage. He is extremely well known and his death a little while back only goes to show his popularity. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:FOOTBALL, no significant coverage and nothing remarkable that merits inclusion of this particular season in comparison with other seasons which don't have articles Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Staffordshire Senior Cup, not sure why you call Staffordshire local, it's a big area!! This occurred a long time ago so I don't know the coverage, there maybe some there in county and local newspaper searches. However I suggest redirect for now as alternative to deletion. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't really serve as a useful redirect though, firstly because none of the other seasons of this cup standalone exist as articles or redirects, and secondly, it's useful to no one as people aren't really going to search that season specifically just to redirect to the overall article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm seeing a lot of coverage in the BNA for this season. Obviously in the Staffordshire Sentinel, but also in national papers like the Sporting Life, Morning Leader, and papers from other counties. I currently don't have BNA access, User:Pkbwcgs can you precis your BNA search results? Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Redirect" but was asked by an editor whether or not there was a strong consensus for this outcome and after reviewing, I decided to revert myself and relist this discussion. Pinging participants User:Pkbwcgs, User:Govvy, User:GiantSnowman and User:Nfitz
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I remain of the view that a redirect is the most suitable outcome. GiantSnowman 08:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm finding a lot of references to that season's competition, particularly in the BNA archive, which I don't have access to. There's less in Newspapers.com because of it's limited UK collection - but I've added 8 references to the article and expanded, from 8 different publications. Can User:GiantSnowman review these? There seems to be plenty of further references available to fully document the season, some surprisingly detailed! Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of them look like anything other than results or routine news. GiantSnowman 09:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't link any results. These were all text - admittedly one was very brief. Routine refers to sports scores. And this is more than that. Also, someone needs to look at the BNA search results. Most importantly - from your edit history, you spent no more than 30 seconds reviewing 8 references. Your original vote was equally as fast. I really think that not much weight should be given to this redirect opinion. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I got temporary BNA access, so in recognition that many of the references are local, I added 5 more references from other parts of England. Also, I added a second reference from the The Staffordshire Sentinel that is surprisingly detailed, giving a background of the competition before the final match was to be played. So that should sort any remaining GNG concerns. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per improvements to the article, I'd probably like to see a little more depth, but it's much better, thank you Nfitz. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes there have been improvements to the sourcing, but I do not see evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. All of the BNA articles listed are from the time of the matches, when of course there will be some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Joseph2302: Is a topic talked about overtime? Well, the clubs that played in this have the ability to mention it in their match day programmes when they play each other again. That does constitute what you call primary sourcing. However, this in essence is really a historical record on the competition. Having on wikipedia can also give the ability for people to find it and out source it. However, What do you want wikipedia to do? There are policies upon policies on wikipedia, but if you don't want to keep a historic record on wikipedia, then whats wikipedia for? An encyclopaedic archive of historical events and information? This is one of those things, sigcov, sustained are policies, guidelines to adhere, sometimes we do need to look beyond that. But hey, that's my ... two cents. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dipali Goenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. Also, the entire page is dominated by company references, while her personal references are limited to either WP:ROUTINE or WP:ADMASQ. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There has been some misleading promotionalism in this article: in Recognition it said "Forbes magazine named her as the 16th most powerful woman in Asia and the 4th in India in 2016", but she was listed 16th in a list which explicitly states "this list -- which is presented alphabetically and is not intended to be a ranking". (I've edited this). This suggests that all sourcing needs very careful checking. PamD 08:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I’m not going to waste my time and yours with a detailed analysis of the made up in one day award and passing mentions. Suffice to say that she’s not notable. We’ve seen a lot of those pages, but in 2024 everyone knows we are not a free website listing everyone who runs a large business. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i am sorry but she is not the run of the mill businesswoman. She heads world’s one the largest textile companies. Forbes ranked her as the 16th most powerful woman in Asia. She has represented India at various international forums, including Harvard India and the World Economic Forum, and has chaired and served on the boards of major organizations. Agree with you and the page nomination about the promotional language in the article. Thus made significant improvements and removed promotional content/language and unnecessary sources and added more sigcov sources. There are lots of sources on google·Also created lawsuit for neutrality.she passes WP:GNG.Ashwithride (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Forbes lists her as the 16th, alphabetically, in a list of 50 most powerful women in Asia which explicitly says that it "is presented alphabetically and is not intended to be a ranking" (even if a Forbes India writer seems to misunderstand this). I corrected the statement in the "Recognition" section, but hadn't noticed that it was also misprepresented in the lead, which I have now corrected. The enthusiasm which some editors have for misrepresenting this listing makes one cautious about other claims, which should all be very carefully checked. PamD 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that User:Ashwithride created the article and appears not to have edited any other articles in en.wiki since creating their account on 9 July 20204. PamD 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that, in parallel, There was an attempt to remove controversies from Welspun Living's page on 13 February 2024, Welspun Corp's page got updated on 24 May 2024, Welspun Group name changed to Welspun World, and page got updated too on 12 June 2024; Dipali Goenka's page created on 10 July 2024, Welspun Enterprises' page created on 14 October 2024. Most of these pages are flagged for conflicts of interest, making it appear as if this year is especially focused on Welspun activity on Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep vote here from the article creator so I'm relisting this discussion. Please review changes made to the article by Ashwithride since its nomination and judge whether they have led to an improvement in this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tambudzai Mncube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article relies on a very limited number of sources, primarily one cited article and a reference to Britannica. Many key details, such as her participation in "Big Brother The Chase" in 2013, her origin, and her personal history, are uncited. A WP:BEFORE search brought nothing out, and the article reads more like a promotional profile than an encyclopedic entry. The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and South Africa. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Entertainment, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed reference to "Britannica" is in fact linked to the same Drum (SNL24) article as the first ref. So that there's only one source. It may be considered significant although based on an interview but I suppose it's not enough. The awards that she has apparently founded the Shining star Africa awards have received some coverage. Again, is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:07, 19 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!} 04:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I genuinely cannot find anything outside of the Drum source, despite a decent search. It is mainly about her (not just about the award with passing mentions). But it's WP:PRIMARY as it's 90% direct quotes from her with the other 10% being "She told the drum that..." and primary sources don't count towards notability per WP:BIO. Therefore, I don't believe she presently meets the requirements. MolecularPilot 05:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Qadeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. Written like a PROMO. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In its current state, the BLP is not ready for the main NS. This PROMO BLP appears to have been created by a newbie, yet it resembles the work of an experienced editor, which raises concerns about possible UPE. I suggest we draftify it for now to allow an AFC review. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your input, @Saqib. I am sorry but I am new to this space; could you please help me understand what UPE stands for?

  Please guide me about how to draftify the article and ways of improving it. Looking forward to your response. MohamoedKhaledZ010 (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: It sure is written like a promo. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify for now, but I will note that the creator, MohamoedKhaledZ010, has been very responsive and looks like they are trying to be productive. It seems like this is just part of their interest area, and I don't believe the promotional tone is intentional. I pinged them to make sure they are aware of this discussion, and so they can chime in if they'd like. I'm certainly willing to help them as their mentor if needed. Fritzmann (message me) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankful to you for marking this for me, @Fritzmann2002!

  Could you please guide me about how to improve the article? As community members are suggesting to draftify the article, how do I go about doing that exactly - would really appreciate if you help me through this. MohamoedKhaledZ010 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate finance in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

AI-generated redundant fork of Climate change policy of the United States sourced entirely to primary sources. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Climate policy of the United States Climate change policy of the United States: As a WP:ATD. The article is too low-quality to merge anything. I note that there are several other articles titled "Climate finance in X", some of which might be suitable for merging into more general articles about climate change in their respective countries. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment While trying to learn more about the WikiEdu program, I stumbled on the WikiEdu Climate Finance campaign which might be the origin of some of these articles. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @ClaudineChionh I'm helping to run this initiative and would be happy to answer any questions you, or anyone else, might have about it. Thanks for all of the discussion. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm particularly concerned about Climate finance in Trinidad and Tobago, which was created by an admin who's affiliated with WikiEdu. Its sourcing consists of two primary sources and three other sources that barely even mention climate change and just regurgitate the words of various corporations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Helpful Raccoon I am looking for more sources to appear on that article as well. I think those government sources are high quality and an appropriate start. Happy to discuss that more on that article's talk page if you like. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the contributions to the article, I am adding wider references that offer an outside view and supporting evidence of outcomes and successes. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Helpful Raccoon. I appreciate your concern. I created the climate finance in Trinidad and Tobago as a template for how to create articles like these - and to avoid largely redundant articles like this one. I do think this kind of information is important to surface particularly because it's buried in reports. That said, you're right, it's pretty bare bones, that that's on me for not continuing to expand it. Point taken. Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying! One of my concerns is that it's unclear whether these climate finance articles meet WP:GNG. On the other hand, much of this information could be contained in broader articles such as "Climate change in X" or "Climate change policy in X". These articles could be sourced more easily while giving a more comprehensive overview of each country's situation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the consideration that the article is relevant to the Climate Policy in the United States which I did feel was another faucet of the topic. I was focusing on presenting a view of climate finance in the U.S. from the Paris agreement commitments and the outcomes of the action which is relevant to policy but I feel a need to present a wider view. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Helpful Raccoon, Climate policy of the United States isn't an appropriate Redirect target article because it is a Redirect, not an article. It should appear as a green link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing that out, I meant Climate change policy of the United States. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, the first version had bullet point and errors in format that I thought was referred to AI format. I have changed the format. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netforcarbon To be clear, did you use AI to write this article? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raccoon not AI to write the article but I do have an AI review and format assistant. I also use an AI editor but the content is from my notes and reviews of other documents on the US commitments and outcomes pertaining to climate finance which is also within my profession. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I continued this discussion on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was alerted to this from the WikiProject Climate Change talk page. I haven't looked at the actual content yet but in general, I am against creating such sub-sub-articles, which usually end up lingering with very low pageviews. Why not rather include some of this content as an example in the article climate finance? Or else within a U.S. specific climate change article like suggested above. Like Climate change policy of the United States or Climate change in the United States.

Also if WikiEdu or someone is organising a drive to create lots of these "climate finance" type articles for specific countries then please alert others through the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (early on, not just at the end). Thanks to User:FULBERT for the recent alert.

Also, using Chat-GPT (or similar) for language polishing or for ideas for structuring the article is perfectly fine. Using it for actually up to date content generation might be flawed. I am curious to learn how (if) you used AI for this exercise? If done correctly and carefully there is nothing wrong with that. But you'd have to be able to detect hallucinations and wrong information while working with it. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile I did not use AI to write content but I do use AI for format and for the final review. I will go back to rewrite content. I appreciate the insight to the wikiworld and the community of editors! Excellence in information sharing and climate finance in the Unites States is relevant and needs its own place of explanations that ultimately lead to the transparency of climate actions pertaining to financing. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome to Wikipedia, User:Netforcarbon. I hope you like it here. My point is that if you want your content to be seen and read, then you might be better off integrating it into an existing article rather than creating a new one from scratch. I don't know if you have discovered the page view graphs yet? You can access it from the top "view history" tab. In general, I recommend to new Wikipedia editors to rather improve and enrich existing articles with higher pageviews rather than focusing on low pageview articles or even completely new articles. You have more impact with the high pageview articles. Also, if climate finance already has quite low pageviews (see here) then what makes you think that "climate finance in country X" would get any more pageviews? EMsmile (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netforcarbon and Will (Wiki Ed). If you are interested, I think a discussion about the campaign on the wp:WikiProject Climate Change talk page could be fruitful. This would be a less stressful and more collaborative environment than AfD. One of my concerns at the moment is this and possibly other articles serving as an uncritical, promotional listing of things that governments and corporations have called climate finance. Unfortunately quite a few things that are labelled climate finance are greenwashing, fossil fuel subsidies in disguise, or just ineffective. If we could start with a broader conversation about your goals and your skillsets, we could help you with things like figuring out what sources to use and choosing high-impact articles to create/improve. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot Thanks for that recommendation - I'll post something soon. I also appreciate the greenwashing concern. I think this is exactly why we should be focusing on this area. Separating substantive climate change mitigation action from greenwashing is important. The funding element is also challenging, but its as important as any other kind of legislation. Thanks again! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the US has such enormous financial clout that the topic seems to me to be notable. US policy and finance are both so influential there should be enough info for two articles. Although they will overlap somewhat not all policy is finance (for example policy can make regulations or diplomacy) and not all finance is policy (for example Tesla was only partly government funded - a lot was private, and much else is private finance e.g. 3 Mile Island). Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Econofoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep as a notable-enough regional Iowa supermarket. Some book sources coming up and listings in Plunkett's food industry and retail almanacs, and the Hoover's Handbook of American Business, Handbook of NASDAQ stocks,. Combined with a few of the local news stories about store closings and acquisitions I think this does pass WP:GNG.[69][70] Andre🚐 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much guaranteed that when an editor starts arguing to ignore NCORP, its an acknowledgement that the topic fails the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. ^Wiinter_U 04:46, 12 October 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, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also relevant that both Keep !voters acknowledge that the sourcing fails NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No Objections to a Move to Draft either if somebody thinks there are enough sources out there.... HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft to provide time for further research and potential expansion. Newspapers.com returns 34,082 matches for "Econofoods", though at first glance many are advertisements and many are for uses other than this subject. Nonetheless, some are substantive articles addressing this article subject, and a deeper dive might uncover enough to meet NCORP. BD2412 T 00:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. I know it's a view that also gets put forward at DRV every so often, but I am thus far unconvinced it is a rational interpretation of the guidelines to obviate the entire force of NCORP for every article it could possibly apply to. No objection to delete either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPark Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One-line stub for an obscure religious private school in St. Louis. The only references are non-independent. I wouldn't really call this to be significant coverage. This makes a passing mention of the school closing in 2010. There's a couple sentences here about the school closing, but that article is about a different entity. I just don't see a pass of WP:NSCHOOL here; it says something about the article subject that this school has apparently been closed for over 15 years and our article on it has not been updated with that information. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything myself. The school has been closed for nearly 15 years and it is not notable to have its own article. I've checked the sources you've listed and do not think that the coverage is anything extraordinary or enough to give the school its own article. Looking at previous versions of the article, I don't think the lawsuits mentioned really materialized into any news. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to insufficient independent and verifiable sources that establish the school's notability, as the content primarily focuses on basic institutional details without broader significance or coverage.--Moarnighar (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article describes what was likely a minor skirmish and says of it “There is no independent confirmation from reliable sources.” Which means we should not have an article on it. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq, Tamil Nadu, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only mentions I could find are in the references and this [71] (Syrian state media - not a WP:RS). All the references say "HPG claims" or "Kurdish forces announce" - none of the information is confirmed (one article just quotes the press statement, other paraphrases), it's all WP:PRIMARY and clearly the press statement cannot be reliable or considered to be from a WP:NPOV. Per WP:PRSOURCE "Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions" so it's a delete from me. MolecularPilot 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination LefterDalaka (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor-Fliedner-Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TNT. Article created October 2024. Retrieval date on some sources showing 2019. It would just take a lot of time to go through each source. It would be more effective to get of it, then someone else can re-create it if needed. Created and edited upon by a problematic AI injector. See the talk page and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Possible_academic_boosterism_ref_spamming. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: The article appears to be a translation from another language version, consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines on cross-language contributions. The retrieval dates correspond to the original language sources, which is standard practice in translations. The content is factual, well-sourced, and enhances coverage on this topic. 2A02:C7C:EC31:4200:5935:4048:17E1:63F9 (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC) blocked sock Flounder fillet (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  GPT Zero says above text is 100% AI... and this is a deletion discussion about fake reference inserting AI account... Graywalls (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::This not correct. It is a proper translation following standard Wiki guidelines, not an AI-generated text. Please avoid these unfounded accusations. If you have concerns, consider addressing them constructively rather than through repeated reverts and deletion sprees. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This IP has been blocked as a sock of the article's creator. Flounder fillet (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::Both you and user Graywalls are jointly engaging in actions that appear to target and silence the main profile in the context of constructive talks. If the profile is blocked, any engagement can only occur through IPs, which may change frequently due to being away from home – this is a technical matter, not intentional. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Suspicious vandal-created article. If this is indeed a translation from another language as the IP claims, it is unattributed (see WP:TFOLWP) and should be deleted as a copyright violation. Flounder fillet (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep & add the corresponding hint. Translations are common and even encouraged by the Wikipedia through the translation editor. 185.137.36.88 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)blocked sock --Flounder fillet (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::These highly immature blocking actions, especially in the context of content-driven opinions that seek to solve the situation, constitute bullying, harassment, and silencing. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to dispute your block at your account's talk page. Evading it goes against policy and will result only in more blocks. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether an organisation has officially commenced operations or not is not relevant to notability. The fact that it is a government agency with a legal basis means it is highly likely to commence operations, anyway. We need to know whether the authority has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well a point I forgot to mention is that usually as per my knowledge after cabinet approval the act has to pass through parliament to come into force. Cabinet approval means that the Federal Cabinet has no issue with the act. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's a proposed entity that has received some coverage in 2023, but I don’t believe it meets NORG since there isn’t any sustained coverage. Imv, it falls under WP:TOOSOON. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As an only proposed government entity, it is WP:TOOSOON for this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: as an ATD. I agree with the TOOSOON concerns and there's been no coverage of this agency since the announcement that I can see. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rousseau Grigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

May not meet WP:ENT or WP:SIGCOV. Minimal sourcing outside of her death. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Internet, and Texas. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing what makes her notable. Her follower count isn't especially massive in comparison to the highest followed on the app, her business ventures aren't notable. Rusted AutoParts 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  she passed away. This is pretty heartless to delete her autobiography. If you died you would want your legacy to live on. I know her husband would want this to stay up as well. 174.27.213.42 (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia don't delete you have many other non famous people on here that are minor influences. 174.27.213.42 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. And no offence but what her husband might or might not want has no bearing on whether this remains as an article or not. Procyon117 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with what is said above. Don't delete this article CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is an edge case but there is more than passing mention coverage of the subject before her death and certainly after. Nnev66 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep heartless to delete. Krazykatlady123 (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for new sources that apparently exist. The keep !votes should provide the references they think that show notability, rather than simply putting out a carpet term that notability exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see previous Reisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not seeing how WP:GNG is met, and coverage of death is not enough. Melcous (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I personally believe that she is notable enough, and though the article is quite a stub, it does not seem fair to delete an article about someone who passed away. 68.230.53.144 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

68.230.53.144, most of the biographical articles on Wikipedia are about people who have passed away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Bancorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, Delaware, and Montana. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:LISTED, sufficient independent sources to clear WP:NCORP almost always exist for publicly traded companies. "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports", and that is the case for this company. See the table below linking to recent (paywalled) independent analyst reports from MarketBeat for Glacier Bancorp (GBCI). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Brokerage	Analyst Name	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
10/2/2024	Raymond James		Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$45.00 ➝ $48.00	+7.55%	View Report Details
9/20/2024	Truist Securities		Boost Target	Hold ➝ Hold	$46.00 ➝ $50.00	+6.68%	View Report Details
8/27/2024	Piper Sandler		Reiterated Rating	Neutral ➝ Neutral	$38.00 ➝ $38.00	-17.84%	View Report Details
4/23/2024	Stephens		Lower Target	Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight	$44.00 ➝ $40.00	+4.49%	View Report Details
4/22/2024	DA Davidson		Lower Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$48.00 ➝ $45.00	+25.28%	View Report Details

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 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!} 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dclemens, and a quick Google news search[75]. This company likely meets notability criteria. Takipoint123 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1937 State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article that was copied and pasted from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search reveals links about the band but not the song. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A quick search doesn't turn up anything that would contribute to notability, and the article doesn't have any sourcing.nf utvol (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the parent album Teens of Denial as is the usual procedure. This song received some specific discussion in some of the reviews for the entire album, but that is not enough to justify a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Anderson (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of significant coverage. I came across the article when nominating several of his directed films for deletion (see 1, 2, 3), and subsequent searches for him specifically have failed to turn up more sources, even after narrowing the search terms to avoid other Mitch Andersons. His IMDb credits are relatively light, supporting the idea that there is likely no significant coverage of him or his work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very minimal coverage now in the article, does not seem to meet notability. I can't find anything about this person, also his personal website appears to be inactive. Trex32 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Romania. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No indications of notability that I could find either and sourcing isn't at a level needed for a BLP. nf utvol (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion, and [WP:BLP]]. I did a couple of searches online and found zero news, newspaper, or online reviews of his films, much less about him. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]