Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 30

< October 29 October 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Inalugartuut

[edit]
Inalugartuut (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 refs on the page for more than 4 years. I'm not seeing anything at all in searches, can't even WP:V that this is a thing, never mind that it meets the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaap-se-Hoogte

[edit]
Jaap-se-Hoogte (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 refs on the page for many years. I see brief mentions but not the substantial coverage in independent RS needed to reach the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jairam Kumar Mahato

[edit]
Jairam Kumar Mahato (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 even WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wrap

[edit]
Great Wrap (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 sources are not meeting NCORP - passing mentions, interview-based or trivial coverage 美しい歌 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayHT

[edit]
PlayHT (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 product. Spam that smells of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about it. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brothers' College, Boksburg

[edit]
Christian Brothers' College, Boksburg (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 refs on the page for many years. I see some passing mentions in autobiographies and regurgitated PR in local media but nothing significant. I'd be interested to hear if anyone can find much else JMWt (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEMMCO

[edit]
NEMMCO (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 could find reliable multiple sources and coverage per NCORP. 美しい歌 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mold-Tek Packaging

[edit]
Mold-Tek Packaging (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)

Should be deleted due to insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, the content appears promotional and lacks critical analysis, making it better suited for consolidation within a broader article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 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! 07:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

[edit]
Zainal Arifin Mochtar (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 coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (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)

Looking over the sources, even those on the talk page, they're all pretty trivial or short statements. Chao on their own are an interesting concept, but there's less said about them as their own thing as a fictional species and more as a minigame aspect of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, and even as that game mechanic the conversation feels lacking and non-notable.

Even doing a WP:BEFORE I didn't find anything to dissuade that opinion. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

[edit]
Giant Records (independent) (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. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 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! 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:
    1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
    2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Reconrabbit 17:37, 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! 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureCash

[edit]
SureCash (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)

Outside of the usual WP:CORPROUTINE, I could not find any coverage of this company. The Bengali name (শিওরক্যাশ) returned similar results, for example, about seeking partnership and closing. Unlikely to have enough sources to write a proper article. Would not object to finding a suitable redirect target, but my mind is blank on that so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 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! 06:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JZyNO

[edit]
JZyNO (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)

Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,[4] and here,[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.[6][7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).[8] This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So he has won an award, and went on to lead the nomination list with 7 nods, that's amazing. dxneo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed any of the concerns brought up in my last reply. Once you are able to do so I will be happy to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.

  1. In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
  2. Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
  3. Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
  4. Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.

All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. dxneo (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
  2. ^ "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
  3. ^ "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
  5. ^ DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  6. ^ "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  7. ^ "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  8. ^ "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's it not reliable when it was never assessed at WP:RS/N? dxneo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDistortion 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question] dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
  • All Africa, this is a churnalism piece that was reprinted from FrontPage Agrica (see below).
  • FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
  • BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
  • Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
  • Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
  • Official Charts, again, just shows chart positioning.
  • BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
  • FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot IOL. Product of WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, WP:ANYBIO does not say a person "IS" notable for meeting one of the criteria. It says "LIKELY." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, stop nitpicking and commenting on every single post. You cannot refute the fact that the subject had a song chart on multiple prominent charts. Charting is major criterion of MUSICBIO. You do not have any evidence to support the claim you're making about some of the sources being "paid placements". You're speculating and making false assumptions in an attempt to justify your position. For your info, Front Page Africa is a major newspaper outlet in Liberia, one of only three in the country. The fact of the matter is that this particular article is independent of the subject. Although it does contains weasel words, there are zero quotes from the subject.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I am allowed to respond despite you saying not to. I am discussing, in good faith, both mine and other's contentions in the discussion. If you don't like it, ANI is that way. I never said he didn't chart so don't infer that I did. As far as the reference you shown, it is in fact churnalism. If you want to see the rest of it, you can go here, here, and here. While Front Page African may be a reliable source, that particular source is a churnalised press release so it can't be used for notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reviewed my !vote in the light of what appears, for no obvious reason, to be a rather strident AfD discussion. The article subject has had a significant segment on national level radio, has charted in multiple countries, and has also been nominated, or won, awards at a national level in 2 countries. All of these are "ticks" per WP:MUSICBIO that are verified by sources which are very much independent of the subject, and are cited in the article. We appear to have, at minimum, enough for a Start-level article. Consequently a presumption of notability may be made and I stand by my keep !vote. ResonantDistortion 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect you taking the time to go through everything. I just want to say that "presumption of notability" is not notability. We have presumed notability based on those ticks but I still do not see the significant coverage (only verification sources). MUSICBIO says "may" be notable for these things, not that they "are" notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Uvito

[edit]
El Uvito (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 1 references are census data Pitille02 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should be updated. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springs Toledo

[edit]
Springs Toledo (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 RS evidence satisfying WP:AUTHOR. No secondary RS coverage of his work or impact. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Vũ Minh

[edit]
Mai Vũ Minh (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 page was deleted under the title Mai Vu Minh (log). The statement "In 2016 he was elected as a people's deputy to the National Assembly of Vietnam and served in the economics committee" in this article is not correct, this name does not appear in the list of deputies elected to the National Assembly of Vietnam in 2016. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not reliable to begin with for any claim, even if it was actually in the blog post. This is one of the entrepreneur contributor blog posts ("Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own")- a favorite target for UPDE scammers similar to the forbes contributor blogs. Perhaps we could look at the other blogs that the "author" posted to the site, like "How to Sell Feet Pics & Make Money: 10 Simple Steps". Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ג'ימיהחיה: Can you supply some of those that post-date the euronews piece? I was unable to locate anything even remotely reliable. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tried to clean up this article, but I haven’t changed my vote. Independent sources like Euronews aren’t enough to write a biography, and others repeat his unreliable claims. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The pre-2020 sources are useless given that they're part of a hoax per the Euronews source. There is an unbelievable amount of known, fake, blackhat SEO garbage blogs that are running PR pieces on him. Previous incarnations of this article (Draft:Mai Vu Minh and Mai Vu Minh) have used similar junk sources - fake forbes sites, paid advertorials, blackhat blogs and more. Clearly, there's a lot of SEO/paid editing in play. I can see the Mate Sam99 (talk · contribs) UDPE socks were at work at one point. This leaves us with no source for any real notability, a lot of fake sources, and one passing source showing that he's an interesting scammer. Not enough for a WP:BLP. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are very different opinions of this article. User:Jiaoriballisse and User:ג'ימיהחיה can you identify the sources you think are reliable? Because those arguing for Delete says that most of the coverage of him is fake and even the article that you reviewed asserts this, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fake millionaires could be notable I suppose, but this doesn't seem to be. I'm not sure why Croatian and Serbian media are interested in a person from Vietnam. Meeting with xyz form Bosnia doesn't get you notability here either. I don't see this person as passing criminal notability over the alleged fake photos, so this isn't at all notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

[edit]
Emily Duggan (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 as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 23 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! 02:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Jacob

[edit]
T. J. Jacob (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 inherent notability in the highest position attained, deputy Inspector General. The police medal may add to notability but it appears to be only covered in primary sources. His swimming achievements do not meet WP:ATHLETE. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 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! 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage by secondary coverage past trivial metnions. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monal (software)

[edit]
Monal (software) (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)

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any coverage for this chat client at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 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! 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any coverage. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

[edit]
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (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 due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 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! 01:30, 16 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! 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether this article should be Deleted, Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (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 meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.
RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:
1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.
2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).
Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".
In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.
But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Canada

[edit]
List of cultural icons of Canada (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)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Previously existed for ~a day before being converted into a redirect to Culture of Canada. However, the target page does not contain the word "icon" or any mention of cultural icons, much less an entire list of them. Does not seem suitable to be a redirect, but also doesn't seem suitable to be an article, either. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT. Seems like a random collection of terms. Not encyclopedic. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cultural icons of the Netherlands (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)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Recently restored from being a redirect, as the target in question does not contain a list of cultural icons. Not suitable to be a redirect, but it doesn't seem to be a need to have this as an article, either. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Italy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cultural icons of Italy (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)

As per the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. This has been recently restored from targeting Culture of Italy, but the page contains no such list of "cultural icons". It is not suitable to be a redirect, but it also does not seem suitable to be an article, either, so we arrive here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Adamson

[edit]
Joanne Adamson (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 5 of the 6 supplied sources are primary. The supplied third party source merely quotes her making a statement and is not WP:SIGCOV. A search could not find any indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions of articles in draftspace go to WP:MFD, not AfD. No prejudice against a refiling over there. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 00:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election

[edit]
Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election (edit | [[Talk:Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election|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 was declined four times at WP:AFC. After the last decline, the creator -- who is busy creating a lot of mayoral election stubs -- went ahead and added it directly to mainspace.

I'm concerned there is not enough non-WP:ROUTINE WP:SIGCOV to support a standalone article on a suburban mayoral election. Of course, there's certainly coverage in the way that any election gets coverage but - from that perspective - that coverage will be ROUTINE by definition. My WP:BEFORE is unable to find any coverage of this event other than one reference in the article (there are two refs in the article, but only one is about the election). Chetsford (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cory Schmitz

[edit]
Cory Schmitz (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 graphic artist who has worked on a number of significant games, but the sources presented and available don't focus on the person, or show compliance with WP:ARTIST Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]