Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 1

< October 31 November 02 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. After close discussions users found that It's a featured article on the french wikipedia, GNG was met according to one New Yorker article, and that there are plenty of sources. (non-admin closure) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 16:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ithkuil

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ithkuil (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 entirely cites primary, self-published sources. There do not appear to be any reliable secondary sources to speak of, and thus this regrettably well-developed topic fails WP:GNG. Remsense ‥ 论 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the first sentence of the most recent nomination in 2009 (only featured in a single Russian language magazine and has a brief mention in an LA Times article) is immediately purported in replies to show that the subject is in fact sufficiently notable, this is clearly not the case. The situation has seemingly not improved since. Remsense ‥ 论 23:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The language is discussed in this New Yorker article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this significant coverage. In your opinion, should I just withdraw this? Remsense ‥ 论 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say let the deletion process go through, as in the previous deletion discussions there were a lot of votes to delete, so it may be that people still have more to weigh in on this issue. If it's decided that the New Yorker article is enough for the page to meet WP:GNG then the article will be kept, so the discussion may as well be allowed to continue. Stockhausenfan (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be sufficient to take a peek at the sources used on frwiki, where it is a featured article. And if that's not enough, then a brief look at Google Books and Google Scholar should be convincing enough. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this comment is to some extent missing the point of both this nomination and the previous deletion nominations for this article, which is that while there are plenty of sources on Ithkuil, very few of them are independent of the subject of conlanging as required by WP:GNG to establish notability. Out of the sources on the FR Wikipedia article, the only English-language source I found convincing (I would need more time to evaluate the non-English sources) was the New Yorker article by Foer (the book Transmesis : inside translation's black box does not have sufficient coverage that could establish notability). I think we can cobble together enough sources to support notability so I'm tentatively supporting keeping, but I don't think that the argument in this comment is a good enough justification for keeping. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think our interpretations of WP:GNG differ. I take it the point you are referring to is the following: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. But the subject of the article in question is not conlanging in general, but Ithkuil. Thus, the writings of John Quijada about Ithkuil do, indeed, not contribute anything to its notability. However, the same cannot be said about Stephen Rodgers, David Peterson or Arika Okrent (just to name a few), who AFAIK are not affiliated in any way with him and might not even know him personally. I just don't see why those sources wouldn't be independent. Otherwise you might as well say that any book on American politics cannot be used to establish the notability of Donald Trump. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 23:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, on reflection it seems your interpretation is the correct one. With that in mind, keep. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep Legendarycool (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Procyon117 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the field of conlangs it's one of the most notable and well-known conlangs, outside of it it's something of a meme because of its mind-boggling complexity. Definitely notable enough for Wikipedia.--Goren (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Maltese FA Trophy. Since the keep arguments here are "more sources presumably exist" rather than "here are some good sources", I'm coming down on the side of "redirect", but consider it a close without prejudice - as soon as anyone recovers some of those sources and wants to spin this back out, feel free. asilvering (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1935–36 Maltese FA Trophy

[edit]
1935–36 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)

I moved this to draftspace, but it was moved back unsourced. Of course, a WP:BEFORE search would prove difficult, at best, for events that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I closed the discussion on 1936–37 Maltese FA Trophy as a Redirect outcome but this AFD shows more support for Keeping these year's trophy article. Can someone do a source assessment (if there are reliable sources)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: There's one main source, which is a modern article on the trophy. I can't do any more research on this, but the fact the article is that detailed and written years later, along with the knowledge this is a major trophy (for Malta) shows that a historical source search should bring up more information. SportingFlyer T·C 03:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. asilvering (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes (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)

Delete or merge whatever else content on this page to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Per below and WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This is just an un-needed fork for a page we already have. Not only that, but this page has heavy content from other groups such as the BLA, or TTP, which are scopes completely irrelevant to this topic alone. This page is named "2024 Afghanistan-Pakistan Skirmishes", but also only covers the March 2024 border Skirmishes, when there has also been skirmishes last month in September, which is included in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21, there has already been a concenus on this article that it should remain Waleed (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M Waleed Firstly, there was sockpuppets involved in the original AFD, go back to it to see blocked accounts. Secondly, I never brought up WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As mentioned, the incidents listed here are already mentioned in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes page. There haven't been any incidents this year that are themselves more notable than incidents any other year to warrant this being its own article independent of the main article on this topic. And, yeah, looking at the previous AfD discussion, there seems to have been at least a little bit of sockpuppetry going on? One of the main arguments that was made in favour of keeping the article was that it contains proper sources, which is true, but those sources would be no less proper in the main article. There's no reason for this article to exist, and there's no reason to merge because, as already pointed out, the information here is already in the main article. Archimedes157 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted! Austria Football 02 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted!" is directly against AFD policy, just because you think in your eyes it is a good article does not mean it is worthy of being kept. It is directly against Wikipedia Policy per Redundantfork. See WP:AADD, and more specifically; WP:ILIKEIT. Noorullah (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't have any strong Keep arguments thus far but should some content be Merged into Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indi Script Records

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Indi Script Records (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 company that simply exists and is not even close to meeting WP:NCORP which companies/organization articles are expected to meet in order to remain and WP:NMUSIC is completely irrelevant, because records companies/labels are a company, not a band or ensemble. There's also minor public relations activity at Special:Contributions/Indi_Script_Records Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it was transcluded as 2nd nomination, I don't see any sign that it was kept by community consensus. It doesn't look like it's gone through an actual AfD, but it was PROD'd before and someone re-created it. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although I strongly disagree with the assertion that NMUSIC has nothing to do with record labels, this topic is non-notable by any of Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Nothing found in search for in-depth reliable independent sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD in the past so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee weapon

[edit]
Melee weapon (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)

Seems to be largely original research or merely a WP:DICDEF. "Melee weapon" seems to be almost entirely a tabletop gaming term, so I suggest a merge to Role-playing game terms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Tjandramulia

[edit]
Olivia Tjandramulia (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 notability or significant coverage criterias. Shrug02 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Transwiki to Category:Passport stamps by country or territory at Wikimedia Commons. I have tagged the article page with a notice that regarding the Transwikification. After this has been performed, the {{Now Commons}} template can be placed on the article and it can be speedy deleted. ‎. North America1000 07:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory (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 that should've been a Wikimedia Commons gallery instead. An article about visa policy by country could be encyclopedic, and the footnotes on this article provide potentially useful material for that. However, the current article topic is functionally a list of pictures with little context, and would be better suited for Wikimedia Commons. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoarchitectonics

[edit]
Nanoarchitectonics (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)

Jargon term invented in 1999 that has never been adopted by the wider community. I would just delete it as very little links to it. (If you really, really want the name then do a redirect to nanotechnology, but I am not in favor of that.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology article; the term is a needlessly-technical synonym for "controlled nanoassembly" and, as nom said, has never caught on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A few-second search brings 30,000+ links to dissimilar Google Books and 3000+ uses in Web of Science, either in the article title or abstract. That is definitely not negligible. According to ref. 1 in the article, nanoarchitectonics is wider than nanotechnology and involves ".. non-nanotechnology fields such as supramolecular chemistry with self-assembly/self-organization [44–47], materials fabrications [48–50], and biotechnology [51–55]". Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I cannot verify your claim of 3000+ uses in WoS, I get 1,175 and many of those that have some cites come from K. Ariga. This compares to 55,639 for nanotechnology and 185,073 for nanoparticle. I will definitely dispute the claim in the lead of the article that producing graphere is part of nanoarchitectonics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you restrict your search? I search in all fields over Web of Science Core Collection. Ariga contributes to 308 entries out of 3,039, that is 10%. Nanoparticle is a different object class. Nanotechnology is definitely a more popular term than nanoarchitectonics, I am not arguing against that. Surely we can dispute how to class technological processes, such as graphene exfoliation, but I don't see how this would be relevant to a decision to keep/delete an article. Anyway, I think graphene exfoliation in the lede explains "nano-creation" and not necessarily nanoarchitectonics. Materialscientist (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not restrict my search, I am not sure why there is a difference. Let's wait for more opinions, at the moment it would be "no concensus". Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clicking a couple pages into those Google Books results, and they seem to stop using the term nanoarchitectonics. In general, GB includes a hefty proportion of near-matches, particularly when the search query itself is a rare term. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism/branding term for an area that is not meaningfully distinct or well-defined. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 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! 20:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Him Kerosene

[edit]
Him Kerosene (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 started out redirecting their two albums Start. Stop. and No Mend No Repair (a third bluelinked album already redirected to someone else's work -- now fixed with a disambiguated redlink) in the absence of evidence that they met WP:NALBUM, but on further review I can't find any evidence that they actually meet WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. It's possible that there may be offline/defunct qualitative coverage, but their sv-wiki articles provide no additional help with that either. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to see more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Little to no sources found. The Swedish wiki article appears largely un-sourced with a notice to import text from the EN wiki to expand it... This was all I could find [1]. One source isn't enough even if it was a RS (the source is paywalled, I haven't reviewed it, but one source alone won't save this article anyway). Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masataka Tamura

[edit]
Masataka Tamura (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 3 in Japan's second league (12 in the third) being his weak claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, can't find GNG-passing sources about him in English or Japanese Noah 💬 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentaro Nakata

[edit]
Kentaro Nakata (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)

Strong failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and only 2 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian mafia

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Macedonian mafia (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 realize that the article was nominated for deletion before. However, significant and in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the so-called "Macedonian mafia" is lacking. The only academic source I've encountered that mentions the Macedonian mafia is Social Change, Gender and Violence: Post-communist and war affected societies. It is true that there are criminal groups in North Macedonia (as well as Macedonian criminals abroad) but I have not seen any sources classify them as part of a broader body, so the whole premise for the article is based on original research. Besides, everything that has been added has been contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I concur toweli (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Turkey. asilvering (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Radio Turkey

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Virgin Radio Turkey (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 Turkish article is also uncited. As there are so many radio stations here what makes this one notable? https://businessht.bloomberght.com/piyasalar/haber/1096766-yunanlilar-karnavali-istiyor is not enough I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 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! 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I could also close this as keep, but given the length of this discussion (relisted twice) and only two keeps, a no consensus closure seems more appropriate and the page is still here anyway. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Party (Turkey)

[edit]
Peace Party (Turkey) (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)

Yet another Turkish political party article with no cites at all. I have not found enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 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! 19:49, 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! 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Might be worth starting a merge discussion? asilvering (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II weapons of Turkey

[edit]
List of World War II weapons of Turkey (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 Turkey hardly participated in WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that OP has not actually made a policy based argument for deletion, that doesn't however mean that they are wrong. I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nom's statement does not contain policy-based rationale for deletion, but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG. I did find this [3], but I'm not too sure if it's reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relisting to see if we can come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, proponents of notability have had more than enough time do demonstrate it and have failed miserably at doing so. There is currently no policy or guideline based argument for keeping the article. Based on our existing policies and guidelines which control notability in this context there is just no way I can support inclusion as a stand alone page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Marxists

[edit]
Union of Marxists (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Almost all sources in the article are clearly not reliable. These are practically only the most insignificant references to the organization's participation in some protest actions. The only sources with detailed descriptions are Vashi Novosti and Nakanune.ru, which, however, in the case of Vashi Novosti are devoted to an interview with the head of the organization, and for Nakanune.ru they also consider in the interview format the independent activities of a part of this organization, and not the organization as a whole. In addition, both sources, in addition to the primacy of the sources, raise doubts about their reliability. The other sources are even less reliable. Dantiras (talk) 21:15, 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! 20:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was unable to find any GNG-qualifying sources in English or Russian. Doesn't seem notable in the slightest. Noah 💬 20:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Mars

[edit]
Mission Mars (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; the article has four sources, three of which are simply pages discussing the challenge published by the league itself, and one of which is a press release inviting people to join. I can't find any significant coverage of this elsewhere. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 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! 21:42, 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! 20:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Gallus

[edit]
Agnes Gallus (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)

Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim attempted here is that her work has been exhibited -- but notability on that basis doesn't derive from using the self-published websites of the galleries to prove that the exhibitions happened, it derives from using reliable source coverage about her and her work to prove that they were the subjects of independent third-party coverage and analysis by people without direct involvement in her career.
However, this is referenced mainly to primary sources, like gallery websites and directory entries, with the exception of a Globe and Mail "Lives Lived" (its feature for personal essays about the deaths of people who were meaningful in the life of the writer, but not necessarily famous or notable) which was written by her own daughter and thus isn't fully independent of the subject, and a brief glancing (and thus not substantive) namecheck of her existence in a short blurb. And on a ProQuest search for other sourcing, I got just three hits total, of which one was the same Lives Lived and the other two are just more short blurbs.
There's also reason to suspect direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's only other Wikipedia activity has been the sixth resubmission in eight months of an undersourced draft about one of Agnes's daughter's films, which was originally created by a "different" editor with an only slightly different username whose edit history also revolves exclusively around the work of said daughter.
The daughter herself is genuinely notable, that's not the problem at all, though the related articles may need some review for COI-related neutrality issues nonetheless -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Agnes from having to have more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I want to just say to the person who has been working so hard on this: I'm really sorry if our discussion upsets you, I can appreciate that this is hard to understand when it is someone we personally feel passionate about memorialising. However, I'm afraid that this person just doesn't seem to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify inclusion in my opinion so I'm !voting delete. JMWt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To echo what JMWt said above, I apologize that the author of this article has been working so hard on this article and it is now being discussed for deletion. Unfortunately, the subject of the article simply hasn't received any significant coverage in reliable sources. I find it strange that this article was passed through AfC in the first place, this should have been a very straightforward rejection. Noah 💬 21:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to French military mission to Japan (1867–1868).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Fortant

[edit]
Arthur Fortant (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. It seems he was part of the French military mission to Japan (1867–1868), which seems like an interesting historical incident. However I'm not seeing much that can be described as substantial RS about this person. fr.wiki has more information but is equally bereft of sources. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible,this article not have news coverage Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have !voted for both !keep and !delete. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Barnes

[edit]
Leo Barnes (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 is a mess. This article is all in universe information and no real world information. There only two sources for this article, one probably a dead link, and another and interview. This overall doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:FILM. I would highly request a speedy delete. Toby2023 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Mark Inside.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static/Crash

[edit]
Static/Crash (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)

Can't find any reliable sources covering the album (Google search). The only coverage mentioning the album title is this short music blog post and it's not significant coverage, just a passing mention. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mark Inside. I found two reviews from Exclaim! ([12], [13]), a review from The Coast (newspaper) ([14]), and a few sentences about the album in a NOW article about the lead singer and guitarist ([15]). But all of that coverage is too brief to be significant. toweli (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This overall doesn't meet notability. Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. This, once again, is an old holdover from a time when Wikipedia extended an automatic presumption of notability to any album recorded by a notable band regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism — but that's long since been overturned, and an album now has to get over WP:GNG on its own steam. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rituraj Kishore Sinha

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rituraj Kishore Sinha (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 is not about an elected candidate at either the national or state level, so it fails to follow the WP:NPOL guidelines. Also, he fails to qualify for a page according to WP:NBIO, or WP:ANYBIO. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as G11, unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musawo Julie

[edit]
Musawo Julie (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 unilaterally moved into mainspace. A WP:BEFORE has failed, and it's sourced with non-notability proving sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower7 What do you mean? That the article isn't eligible for AfD? If so, that's a new concept to me, so that's going to be explained. That the article isn't eligible to exist? That's what this discussion is supposed to determine. That the article shouldn't be in one of the deletion sorting lists I've added it to? If so, which ones? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. AfD does not discuss deletion of any drafts; only MfD does that, and I will initiate a procedural nomination there. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Heltah Skeltah (album)

[edit]
Draft:Heltah Skeltah (album) (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Heltah Skeltah (album)|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)

Unreleased album, doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Sources are unreliable per WP:GENIUS and WP:RSPYT (YouTube link is broken anyway). Already covered in Helter Skelter (The D.O.C. album). Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keramikou 28

[edit]
Keramikou 28 (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 a G4, but substantively the same issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28 where it was deleted. Opening this discussion since content better assessed here than at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_vanishing_and_restoration_of_a_deleted_article Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please share the problems of the current Keramikou 28 page? IlEssere (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the prior discussion and the ANI in which you are participating. Several editors have made it clear and there is no need to duplicate the same discussion here. Star Mississippi 17:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first AfD, so I apologize for any confusion. I reviewed the previous discussion and the ANI thread to gain a better understanding, but the discussions seem to overlap with various viewpoints and references to the previous article.
If it’s appropriate to ask, could you clarify the reasons on here so others can see it on its AfD as well? This would help make the issues with this page clearer. IlEssere (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Metaxourgeio#Landmarks_and_attractions: it is listed there; and merge content offering outline of the building with best sources (artnet, lifo); not fiercely opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting to Metaxourgeio#Landmarks_and_attractions would limit the information available about the building, as there are many details that could be included. A redirect would offer only a brief mention, and anyone wanting to learn more would need to search online for various articles rather than finding all the information in one place like now. IlEssere (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and History. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while I do see some neutrality issues in the article, there's no need for redirection or deletion given that the article underwent wp:tnt which was given as a reason for deletion in the first place, and that the topic itself has enough sources to establish notability. As said, if neutrality or other prose issues occur, it is best to raise the issue on the talk page.The ANI suggests that the page creators are identical and may have a COI on the topic, evident with the neutrality tone, but given that it already passed the AfD, I am not advancing deletion with salting. I'll go with delete, the concerns brought up by S Marshall is alarming. The evidence is becoming predictable and since unfixable disputed neutrality contravenes wp:npov, the article should be deleted. To note that promotional tone is often one of the reasons for deletion. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep. I vaguely recall this Draft, and I apparently reviewed and declined it four times (though that's not in the article history) for npov and source issues.

My feelings are it was correctly accepted by @ToadetteEdit on this revision.
The article has since been expanded and some npov language has crept back in. I think it's easily salvageable as an article by slimming down some of the text. I do believe it passes notability. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after seeing evidence bellow. qcne (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The revision accepted by ToadetteEdit would be probably eligible for G4, as it seems to be just a cut-down version of the deleted article. Janhrach (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s important to focus on the core issue of this AfD discussion without complicating it with questions of revision, notability, references, or article quality, but to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view.
But for the record, the revision accepted by@ToadetteEdit is not merely a cut-down version of the previously deleted article. The article has been actively updated and is still undergoing improvements, with new information and references being added. IlEssere (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a straight up delete and salt. The sequence goes: (1) Attempt to create the promotional version at AfC: declined. (2) Make a less promotional version, get through AfC, then add in the promotion: deleted at AfD. (3) Make a new account, create a less promotional version using a variant title. Pretend to be new and confused as a smokescreen. Pretend that the problem is the sources in Greek, when the problem is that this is fundamentally an advert. Clearly, the next stage is to add promotional content tweak by tweak, and we simply do not have time for this. It's a timesink, a quagmire of our precious volunteer time. And the re-creation with a variant title is unacceptable. We must not reward that behaviour with success.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have mentioned before, I have no association with the previous creator or the previous page. This is not Attempt to create the promotional version at AfC: declined. (2) Make a less promotional version, get through AfC, then add in the promotion: deleted at AfD. (3) Make a new account, create a less promotional version using a variant title. IlEssere (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked several times to understand any specific concerns with the article so that I can make the necessary adjustments. Could you please share which sections you find promotional? I’d be happy to revise them accordingly. IlEssere (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall, can you see what's changed in the article? It is not a notability issue but a neutrality issue. The user was relatively new and did not know the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. If we just delete and salt the two titles at the very least, it would rather prevent a good faith, neutrality free article from being submitted. IMO it is not an advert, but neutrality is still there and should be rewritten. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @ToadetteEdit. In my view, the neutrality issue could be addressed effectively by encouraging edits from everyone involved in the AfD discussion. As you mentioned, I’m new to Wikipedia and was not fully familiar with all of its policies and guidelines. I don’t have any intention to promote the article. Simply deleting and salting both titles will prevent the submission of a well balanced good faith article in the future. IlEssere (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup of my comment, what evidence have let to your conclusion that the article is promotional in tone? ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to see the evidence that supports the claim that the article is promotional. So far, it’s only been mentioned that it has a promotional tone, but without any specific details or examples to explain where or why. It would be helpful to have more clarity on that point. IlEssere (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per S Marshall. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, In terms of neutrality and notability, there is a strong case to be made for the preservation and further development of an article on contemporary Greek art. Although there may be areas for improvement in tone and neutrality, these issues can be addressed through edits and discussion on the article's talk page rather than redirection or deletion. Contemporary Greek art, with its rich foundation and modern evolution, holds significant cultural and artistic relevance. Ample sources attest to its importance and influence, solidifying its notability. Rather than deletion, it’s more productive to refine the article’s language and improve its adherence to Wikipedia's neutrality standards, ensuring it accurately represents contemporary Greek art's impact on the global art landscape. IlEssere (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've written a few articles on buildings. This building might be notable from my own WP:BEFORE search, but I haven't been able to clearly conclude that it is, because almost all of the sources are on the art group which used the building and are not on the building themselves (there's one exception, the oneman.gr source on the building sale). The issue is that this isn't really an article on the building, but rather an article on the group which took it over and preserved it. The reasons I'm having such difficulty with this one, beyond the fact the articles are in Greek and need to be translated, are because there's something notable here - probably Communitism, which gets several hits on Google Scholar, although this does seem promotional in that regard and would need to be rewritten (a good start would be to eliminate any primary sources). So, in short, the building probably isn't notable, the art group behind the building is clearly notable, we can't just move the article because it's too much about the building, but draftifying and modifying the article to be about the art group seems like the best result to me. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like there may be a misunderstanding on what makes this building notable. The significance of the building actually comes from the variety of artist groups (its not one group) that have occupied and utilized it over time, rather than from a single group that established or preserved it. This continuous, collective engagement by different artists has contributed to its cultural relevance. Perhaps it would be better to frame the article to reflect the building as a dynamic space, continually redefined by these groups, with an emphasis on their work and influence rather than on the structure itself. The groups that where associated with the building including ReMap, Kunsthalle Athena and last of all Communitism. Please keep in mind the buidling was known by these names during each time period IlEssere (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't see enough sources on the building itself. They're all on the groups which were associated with the building, and the building is mostly mentioned in passing. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the links below. IlEssere (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the only one of those I think counts might be the oneman article, and I am not sure if it is considered reliable. We need articles on the building, not on the groups that used it. (Actually, the law preserving the building - if translation is working correctly - is not a bad source.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review all of the links I provided above. And yes, you probably translated the law preserving the building correctly. the Greek state officially recognized the building as significant, which should add to its credibility as a notable source. Let me know if any other clarification is needed! IlEssere (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per S Marshal, with an added note that notability is not inheritable, so even if important groups performed there, they don't contribute from a notability perspective. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though notability is not inheritable, there are at least two sources that speak about the building in detail. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT LINKs regrading notability of the building; Since some users have concerns regarding the potential neutrality and accuracy of the page, and considering the commitment to maintain a balanced perspective, I thought it would be helpful to share some relevant links that provide additional context.
Please expand for links and explanation Star Mississippi 01:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. https://communitism.space/


Starting with Communitism's mission, if wecarefully examine the "About" section on their website, it becomes clear that this initiative originate as a formal organization with a primary goal of preserving culturally significant buildings in Athens. Keramikou 28 was not the first building the helped preserve.


2. https://gold-ailina-51.tiiny.site/


The Greek state recognizes the building as a listed monument due to its cultural, historical, or architectural significance. This recognition includes protection from any alterations or demolition, as well as ensuring its maintenance. The process of recognition typically involves an evaluation by relevant authorities and may include specific regulations regarding its use and management.


3.https://www.oneman.gr/onecity/urban/to-emvlimatiko-ktirio-tis-kerameikou-28-poleitai-kai-to-communitism-psaxnei-neo-spiti/

This link highlights how the building at 28 Kerameikou Street has become a symbol for art, the Athens Gay Pride, and the vibrant drag community in Athens. It reflects a space where diverse events—like performances, parties, and exhibitions and resilience of the local LGBTQ+ scene.

4. https://www.lifo.gr/guide/arts/news/i-kunsthalle-athena-apohaireta-tin-kerameikoy-28

This article in LIFO highlights the significance of the building at Kerameikou 28, emphasizing how Kunsthalle Athena transformed it into an essential cultural venue for Athens. It describes the building’s role as a creative hub that welcomed a diverse array of people—locals, immigrants, artists, and cultural area marked by social challenges and vibrant urban life.


5. https://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/bradley/remap3-athens-art-fest-10-19-11.asp


Artnet, a major art magazine, talks about the building at Keramikou 28 having crucial impact because it exemplifies the event's ethos of transforming neglected urban spaces into vibrant cultural hubs. Situated in Athens' Kerameikos-Metaxourgeio neighborhood, an area known for its rough edges and high vacancy rates, this building symbolized how art can breathe life into a community.


6.https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2021/nov/28/a-locals-guide-to-athens-five-great-things-to-do


The Guardian mentioned the building under Communitsm, describing it as a labyrinthine mansion-cum-workshop that looks like it could fall down at any minute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IlEssere (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt per S Marshall and my comments at the last AfD. I second Allan Nonymous's rationale directly above. Further, the above bludgeoning should be collapsed by an uninvolved editor. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rationale in the previous AfD does not contribute to the current state of the article, given that it is already expanded enough. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the editor bludgeoning this debate should be restricted from contributing to it further and also from being involved in any potential re-creation. This is not how Wikipedia editing processes work." - this part doesn't apply here, given the bludgeoning immediately above? Daniel (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to be something here; more than we see in numerous comparable articles. (Yes, I know, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) But given how long this concoction has been criticized for its prose, the percentage of the (near?) meaningless in the current version is remarkable and depressing. Consider for example: Under the umbrella of Communitism, the building was organized into distinct circles, each with its own goals and responsibilities. This structure allowed for the simultaneous operation of multiple autonomous initiatives within the same physical space. During this time, the building hosted a vibrant ecosystem where artists, activists, and community members exchanged ideas and collaborated on projects. Perhaps meaning: Espousing Communitism, the building was organized into distinct areas, thus allowing multiple projects at any one time. Artists, activists, and community members discussed and collaborated on projects. But I'm not at all sure: Working out what, if anything, this windy prose means (and which parts of this are worth saying) requires too much examination of sources, or guesswork, or both. Perhaps one or two (or more) of those editors who are keen that this article should be preserved would care to rewrite it for a greatly improved signal-to-noise ratio. And quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I have absolutely no idea why this needs to be salted. There's a notable topic here. It's just not the building. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: I skimmed the ANI thread linked above. A different (?) user had created similar page on the same topic that was deleted. The ANI participants say this article was (re)created through gaming the system, they suspect sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry or improper WP:CANVASSing). They are thus proposing salting to prevent further unwanted behavior and time wasted on deleting these. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are not getting the point. The editor had no affiliation with the creator of the OG article. They were a normal novice that didn't recognize the deleted article and recreated it. Since salting is used primarily for long term or problematic recreations, and this draft does not show that apart from the neutrality issue, salting should not be applied to the two titles. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The editor had no affiliation with the creator of the OG article" is a statement I would dispute, given the evidence that is mounting up at the ANI discussion. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is apparently clear that there is possible socking per ANI. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you share the evidence? IlEssere (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note first that I am highly involved – I started the previous AfD discussion and both relevant ANI discussions.) While I am still not absolutely sure Errico Boukoura is IlEssere, I find the evidence strong enough to conclude that. Errico Boukoura was certainly not unproblematic (See the previous AfD and the ANI thread I started about them back in the time.), so recreating the deleted article (even in part) would almost certainly result in it being deleted and Errico Boukoura being banned. But it looks like they choose to trick us and create a new account. This only aggravates the situation. Therefore, delete, in the spirit (but not the letter) of WP:BMB. I also endorse S Marshall's arguments. As for salting, I am not strongly opposed, but watchlisting the pages doesn't leave the unwanted effects on legitimate articles on the topic. Janhrach (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I respect your concerns, it seems speculative to conclude that I am Errico Boukoura without concrete evidence. Assertions like these risk veering into conjecture, and maintaining an assumption of good faith is important, especially without definitive proof.
    If you feel the page has genuinely been improved and has a legitimate basis for inclusion, it seems worth asking why do you think deletion is the most constructive approach? IlEssere (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is pretty strong. Please avoid asking questions that have already been answered, including at ANI or in others' arguments. Janhrach (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - S Marshall is spot on. This is too conveient of a story on how this article just magically appeared after the previous version was deleted. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please share your thoughts on the topic as well? Do you believe it meets the notability criteria to remain on Wikipedia?
    Please veiw the IMPORTANT LINKs regrading notability of the building above as well.
    You can review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_vanishing_and_restoration_of_a_deleted_article for more context on how the article was recreated. IlEssere (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reference provided seems solid in supporting most of the claims made in the article, particularly the document that was shared in here from the Greek state that legally protects the building from demolition due to its cultural significance. Additionally, since most of the feedback or concerns raised are related to minor details, these can be easily addressed and corrected without affecting the overall substance of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:9281:ed10:9185:7724:f13c:799c (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note this editor has only contributed here and at the related ANI discussion.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They did not even sign their comment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does not actually appear to be a heritage listed building. Does not seem to appear on the Greek National Archive of Monuments map as far as I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole first half seems to be unsupported original research. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article about a building has ZERO references about the building and I can find none. The first half of the article is completely unreferenced, even though it has exquisite detail about the architecture and history. Normally, I'd challenge and delete that section, but I'll ask the author IlEssere: where did you get that info? What references can you give us? (Greek is OK). The second half is about some activities that occurred in the building, but the building itself is a peripheral actor: the info may be useful for an article about those activities, but not an article about the building. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete passing mention in local news isn't enough to make a building encyclopedically notable, much of the article remains unsourced. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: author has completely rewritten the article and removed the AfD template. I restored the template and checked a few of the refs (4). Two of the four failed verification. I don't have the time right now to comb through the rest of the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think he just restored an older revision, one before adding the completely unsourced sections. Janhrach (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 Hands (song)

[edit]
2 Hands (song) (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:TOOSOON. A single instagram post does not confer notability(!). Searche do not come up with anything. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game of Banking

[edit]
Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game of Banking (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)

Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this board game. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous research and recent updates. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Áč

[edit]
Michal Áč (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)

My research indicates that he only played 36 matches for FC Nitra and has disappeared for over ten years since. The only secondary source I found is a passing mention on Nitraden, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freak XXI

[edit]
Freak XXI (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 band. Unsourced since 2008, and I was unable to find any reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTN Family

[edit]
LTN Family (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: I found a few mentions ([17], [18]) and a routine news article. Gheus (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't meet GNG; barely any references, and there's no significant coverage on LTN Family, thus it should be deleted. Deuxde (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Adam Revo as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Motor Company

[edit]
Adam Motor Company (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: there is no direct and in-depth article about the company. The coverage is mostly Adam Revo so a redirect per WP:ATD is possible. Gheus (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Rios

[edit]
Sandy Rios (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)

Noting that notability, once established, doesn't vanish over time, I have strong doubts that Rios was ever notable in a Wikipedia sense. The article was created during the Wild West days of Wikipedia when articles were almost added willy nilly. I have done a WP:BEFORE, the more so since the alleged references in the article are pretty much useless, and can find nothing useful about her. There's quite a bit by her. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Benison (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale Horseman

[edit]
The Pale Horseman (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, I'm having difficulty finding RS that are more than blogs. JMWt (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional calculus of sets

[edit]
Fractional calculus of sets (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)

Mathematical topic stemming from a 2021 article published in a semi-predatory journal. References are all very primary, or else mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand (e.g., a general reference for fractional calculus; a book on abelian groups). I'm not seeing either the huge number of citations or the textbook coverage that I'd expect for a notable topic. Written by an editor who appears to be one of the authors of the 2021 paper in an apparent attempt to promote their research (but since it was properly run through AfC, COI concerns are reduced). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations

[edit]
Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations (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 stand-alone article is totally unwarranted in this case given how this individual was never convicted. These types of article creations are completely frowned upon by WP:BLP policy. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Sean Combs#Sexual misconduct allegations, lawsuits, and arrest. Not sure if a merge would be appropriate given he hasn't been convicted or the trial even started. Procyon117 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep after seeing the thread play out. Procyon117 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect for now. Probably salt further editing until he's convicted. Tavantius (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Seeing the more persuasive policy-based reasons for keeping, I vote keep. Tavantius (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sean Combs is a public figure, and so not covered by WP:BLPCRIME, but rather by WP:BLPPUBLIC. For public figures in high-profile criminal cases or lawsuits, BLP does not frown upon covering the cases -- whether they end in conviction/liability or not. We have many, many articles about celebrity trials. Combs's court cases undoubtedly meet WP:GNG. It's not a BLP issue, or a GNG issue, it's a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. In this case, there is so much WP:RS specifically about these court cases (and certainly much more to be written as the cases progress) that including them in the parent biography article may be WP:UNDUE for the biography article. In any event, just on length alone, the sub-article about the court cases is long enough to merit a WP:SPINOFF. I see no reason to delete, or merge. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is a result of a long split discussion. Though that discussion was about the the entire legal issues section, and the sexual allegations is a subsection. This subject is notable and worldwidely debated, as shown by reliable sources. The article can indeed be expanded with more content, as there are more things to be added. Web-julio (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect WP:PUBLICFIGURE provides pretty clear guidance that reliable coverage of embarrassing but reliably sourced content belongs on Wikipedia even when a trial has not concluded. With that being said a stand-alone page is excessive. If the material is too long it should be trimmed of repetitive material and unnecessary detail. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Following a discussion at WP:DRAMABOARD, this user has been blocked for unhelpful, low-effort spamming of discussions and failing WP:CIR. BarntToust 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the consensus at Talk:Sean Combs#Split legal issues into its own article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't find the arguments for deletion made so far persuasive. BLP doesn't forbid or discourage this type of article, and the fact that someone has never been convicted of a crime is no reason to consider the allegation not notable. On the other hand, there is a good body of reliable information about the accusations made against this artist. If this article was in a very bad state regarding BPL standards or the subject was less notable or a non-public person, then I would probably be in favor of redirecting. Badbluebus (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Clearly worthy of a standalone article given the vast coverage of the allegations by sources that meet WP:BLP and WP:RS, and as mentioned before came as a result of consensus from a talk page discussion, so the creation of the page is not without precedent. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nom's statement that 'a stand alone article...is unwarranted...(as they were)...never convicted' is completely taken apart as we have an article about Jimmy Saville's allegations and they were never convicted. I see no BLP issues. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any BLP issues either, as long as high-quality sources continue to be used. And there is precedence for these "types of articles" as well. Woody Allen only has one allegation and we have an article devoted to that single allegation. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich. In fact, BLP's Public figures pretty much mandates we cover such topics if they are notable enough. It only take 2-3 (my rule of thumb) good RS to justify passing mention, and 3-4 (with sustained coverage over more than a couple days) to justify a dedicated stub article. For non-public persons we lean the other direction and sometimes do not cover them, even if 3-4 RS mention them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here, and that "BLP vio" card isn't even relevant here based on the policy-based justification explained above. User:Levivich wrote the most convincing argument based on policy, which altogether justifies inclusion. BarntToust 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has notability outside of Combs himself and has had wide coverage for quite a while. The article seems about as neutral as one discussing sexual allegations and the related fallout can get. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do not agree with OP's rationale that "These types of article creations are completely frowned upon by WP:BLP policy" this seems to be within the very narrow range of such article creations which BLP actually smiles upon (if such a stern and serious policy could ever be seen to smile) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic article is widely known and has received extensive media coverage for some time, and affects many people other than Combs; If we have an article about a single allegation against Woody Allen, why not one for the many accusations for Combs? --Maor X (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". TarnishedPathtalk 11:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich. If the coverage was only on scandal TV shows, I might be inclined to keep this, ethereal are plenty of reliable sources and the Me Too movement is not going away soon. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Levivich. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 03:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Gautam Adani without prejudice against a selective merge. I find the Keep arguments here fail to address the lack of significant coverage independent of the subject's husband. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Adani

[edit]
Priti Adani (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 individual. Sources are merely about the statements she has made which are sourced to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and she is only known for being the wife of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly West

[edit]
The Weekly West (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. Seems WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC in the sense that the majority of the page is a lengthy quote from the newspaper about an event. I don't see that this quote, despite arguably recording an important historical event, means the newspaper meets the standards of notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
World Defense Show (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)

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 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! 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worlddefenseshow.com/about-the-show/wds-leadership/ No No No Team information from the official website ✘ No
https://euro-sd.com/2023/06/news/32396/world-defense-show-in-riyadh-announces-surge-in-interest-at-paris-air-show/ ? No No ✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ukraine-crisis-delays-ak-203-assault-rifle-deal-with-russia/article65221831.ece Yes Yes The article is talking about AK-203 and Ukraine war ? Unknown
https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/4065746/saudi-arabia-japan-sign-15-agreements-establishing-qualitative-partnership ? ~ No mention of the World Defense Show ? Unknown
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2022/03/10/Saudi-Arabia-s-first-World-Defense-Show-in-Riyadh-ends-with-7-9-billion-in-deals No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/616815/SAUDI-ARABIA/Saudi-Arabias-World-Defense-Show-ready-for-launch-after-selling-out-all-exhibition-space ? No ? Seems to be a paid coverage ✘ No
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/thaad-to-guard-saudi-arabia-riyadh-adds-teeth-to/ ? ? Trivial mention ? Unknown
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/635807/SAUDI-ARABIA/Strong-international-demand-leads-to-sell-out-of-second-world-defense-show ? No ? ✘ No
https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/events/defence-heads-and-industry-influencers-to-speak-at-world-defense-show ? No ? Seems to be a paid coverage ✘ No
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/sponsored-be-immersed-in-pioneering-tech-innovation-at-world-defense-show-2024/ No No ? Seems to be a paid coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Michelle Chang (Tekken). Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Chang

[edit]
Julia Chang (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 I recognize Kazama has put a massive amount of work into this over the year, I think if anything when the dust settled it showed the real problem with the article: when trimmed down, there's nothing actually *said*. Unlike Michelle Chang where there is discussion about her as a Native American and representation within the Tekken series as well as gaming as a whole, Julia's reception is more rooted in "she's popular" and "fans wanted her back", with citations of players and not statements from reliable secondary sources themselves analyzing the character. The one source discussing Julia's cultural background and analyzing it is more because she's related to Michelle as that character's daughter.

I want to stress that again, a lot of work has been put into this article. But a WP:BEFORE, and what's here, both illustrate there's no meat on this bone and that was the case before he started working on this. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sobat District

[edit]
Sobat District (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)

Poorly sourced essay-like article. I tried sending this to draftspace, but it was moved immediately back to mainspace by the author. CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: similar to this nom for the same editor, the article needs alot of copy editing especially for bold and capital letters which appears randomly through the text. Not to mention the lack of references and links to other articles. @Choldit, you may want to start by going though Wikipedia:Manual of Style, then submit the draft for approval. Do that for couple of articles before jumping to moving articles to the main space. But beyond that, great start and a very interesting topic. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Nile Region from 1882 under Anglo-Egyptians Military Rule with Civil Colonial Natives Administrations

[edit]
Upper Nile Region from 1882 under Anglo-Egyptians Military Rule with Civil Colonial Natives Administrations (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)

Poorly sourced essay-like article. I tried sending this to draftspace, but it was moved immediately back to mainspace by the author. CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: similar to this nom for the same editor, the article needs alot of copy editing especially for bold and capital letters which appears randomly through the text. Not to mention the lack of references and links to other articles. @Choldit, you may want to start by going though Wikipedia:Manual of Style, then submit the draft for approval. Do that for couple of articles before jumping to moving articles to the main space. But beyond that, great start and a very interesting topic. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor

[edit]
Imago Amor (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 requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:55, 18 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! 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of sources here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It

[edit]
Scars to Prove It (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 requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:59, 20 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! 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Freeman (disambiguation)

[edit]
Elizabeth Freeman (disambiguation) (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 only one Elizabeth Freeman, as well as an Elisabeth Freeman. Betty, Beth and Elise are not named either Elizabeth or Elisabeth. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, BD2412, as I know from experience, having had an aunt whose real name was "Betty". JBW (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several entries, and similar ambiguous ones too. Nothing to be gained from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the time when this deletion nomination was made the page disambiguated 6 people, and it now disambiguates 8, making it potentially helpful. As explained above, a disambiguation page can be useful for distinguishing people with names which are not the same but which could be confused, as well as for disambiguating people with identical names. However, even if we ignore that consideration, there are currently three entries for people named exactly "Elizabeth Freeman", so the page is fully justified. (Incidentally, it probably takes less time to search and find that there are articles about other Elizabeth Freemans than it does to create a deletion discussion.) JBW (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. After reading through this discussion, I see a consensus to Delete, that the existing souces do not establish notability as judged by Wikipedia guidelines. However, I just wanted to note that this could change in the future depending on the direction of her career. A future article would have to be started in Draft space and go through AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

[edit]
Liz Neeley (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)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [24][25]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing "weak" from my delete, as I find the delete votes below more compelling than the keep votes. For GNG, I still find the one NPR piece to contribute somewhat to notability, but the rest seems to me like passing mentions, and I don't think it is enough. No sign whatsoever of NAUTHOR notability, minimal (and arrested) progress towards NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this the same person: [26]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [27], [28], [29]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
    2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
    3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
    4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
    5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
  • Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 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! 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...
I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.
So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.
Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [30], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:NPROF, and there is no significant of her or her work that would satisfy WP:GNG. The accumulation of several quotes as an expert in good outlets is a start, but I don't see it as being enough to overcome the lack of other significant sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UzbukUdash, AFDs aren't a vote, please present an argument to support your opinion, based on policy and your assessment of the sources. Otherwise, your opinion is likely to be dismissed by the discussion closer. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Durning

[edit]
Francis Durning (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:BIO1E the only reason this article exists is because of the allegations of sexual abuse: [31] no notability otherwise and coverage is more about the Catholic Church's role than Durning himself Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ethan Hunt (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)

He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Of all the sources, none are reliable, they are either passing mentions, film reviews, or interviews and don't really talk about the character itself. Luther Stickell suffers the same thing, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luther Stickell. The first nomination was closed a keep, and years later, it isn't fixed. If it's still like this, i would recommend a redirect to either List of Mission: Impossible characters or Tom Cruise. Toby2023 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toby2023He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Can you clarify? As for reliability of the sources, have another look please; at least two substantial sources seem perfectly acceptable. Coverage about the character in books and reviews can be considered enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also inviting other users to read the 1st AfD. It was a clear Keep decision and generally notability does not disappear with time. What you mention seems to be mere cleanup issues and AfDs are not for cleanup. Feel free to add the sources identified in the first debate to the page if you think the state of the article is an issue.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP or DRAFT, Need more relevant sourcing im sure its there UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lack of a valid nominator rationale and sourcing was established in the last AfD. Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, so I don't see how article quality effects subject notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Looks like a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medford, Indiana

[edit]
Medford, Indiana (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 county history cited calls it a rail station with a post office, which is what the maps show as well. There was no town here. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these zoning maps and plats is that what's on the ground bears no particular resemblance to the streets and lots they paint. The plat in particular is so wrong that I cannot determine whether it represents land north or south of the road. likewise, while the zoning ruling at least contains some photography, what has actually happened in the intervening years is that of the area north of the road, the wedge adjacent to the RR RoW has been consolidated into a single property, everything east of that has lapsed back into farmland.I gather the point of the zoning was the consolidation of that land into residential land.
The point here is that there's no doubt in all of this that someone wanted a town here, apparently to the point of setting it up as far as land use was concerned. The substantial discrepancies between the legal definitions and the reality on the ground, however, indicate that the town is a legal fiction that was never realized. The plat in particular is pretty damning, as there is no evidence that any of the streets shown was ever constructed. A few houses along the main road were built, and some sort of business (which presumably was where this Barth was in later years) was built next to the tracks, but that appears to be it. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UzbukUdash, why? Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This is a borderline case, but this place seems better-documented than most of these onetime rural post offices that made it into GNIS. If kept, the article needs to be rewritten, incorporating some of the sources listed above, and removing the "is an unincorporated community", implying the place currently has recognition as a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Economic Partnership Agreements#Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

[edit]
Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique (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 is predicated on misunderstanding a single gov.uk webpage. The claimed customs union does not exist and thus has no sources. Much of the page is false, and what is true is in no way notable. It would be equivalent to having a page titled "Canada and Mexico" because they are both parties to NAFTA. Peetel (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, Indiana

[edit]
Norton, Indiana (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)

Appears to have been a rail point/station/PO. There's nothing there now and the 1910 county history doesn't mention it under either name. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial elections

[edit]
List of controversial elections (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 never going to be an objective criteria of "controversial election" defined by multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Even if we move to the more narrow "contested election" criteria, where only the outcome is in dispute, we still run into the problem of what counts as a dispute. Does a recount and a small protest mean an election counts as "contested" automatically? What is the scope of this page? I do not see how it would help to group national and subnational elections together. This page should be deleted and possibly converted into a category if we can agree on certain criteria. Bremps... 02:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Do not think controversial elections should be categorized as like this UzbukUdash (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossibly broad, undefined category. List has no clear selection criteria. Most entries are unsourced. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 06:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Procyon117 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not averse to deleting the current list, as its scope seems a bit arbitrary to me. But I think it would be possible to define proper criteria (for example, "multiple reliable sources have alleged that electoral fraud took place to an extent that changed the outcome"), and with good criteria the list would be a sensible break-out navigational list from Electoral fraud. As a navigational list, it shouldn't need independent referencing as it should only point to elections with their own articles, which already include referenced discussion of the controversy and fraud. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any LIST containing controversial as a main piece in the title of the article deserves additional scrutiny to make sure the subject as a whole is adequately covered or the selection criteria is narrowly defined. Otherwise, there is the tendency to violate WP:OR or WP:NPOV. In this specific case, there is no selection criteria, violating WP:LSC. --Enos733 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Like you said, every election in the history of elections could be considered controversial. TortivEditor (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery

[edit]
TECO Electric and Machinery (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 believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshi Canopus, there are no sources for this article; the company's website cannot show notability. Do you have links to any sources that demonstrate this company is notable by Wikipedia standards? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.

      The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電 子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相 關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營 下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從 製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"

      From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."

    2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."

    3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事 　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"

      From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."

      The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"

      From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."

    4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"

      From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."

    5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效 國際肯定 榮獲MSCI AA評級 列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"

      From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a closer look at the articles you provided. Thanks for compiling them, I did not find a single one myself. However, I do not believe that these articles merit sufficient coverage. The (first two) articles by Taiwan News and CommonWealth Magazine aren't primarily about the company TECO itself. They portray the recent leadership battle around TECO. According to the notability guidelines sources must provide "Significant coverage of the company itself". Furthermore, there are other problems with the articles concerning the notability guidelines:
Multiple articles by one organization listed as one source:
1.Taiwan News: The article has been written by Contributing Writer Paul Shelton and is therefore not clearly independent or reliable. Furthermore, as the article mainly repeats the statements of parties involved in the leadership battle and only gives little, already publicly available information (Members of the board, short history, vague description of present TECO), it is probably churnalism.(see WP:ORIGIND)
2.CommonWealth Magazine: The "TECO's Father-Son Struggle, Family Matters Turned Into Public Matters..." article probably meets the criteria for a usable source. The other article, however, is about an entirely different person switching to TECO. The article itself briefly mentions TECO, but does not discuss it in depth.
3.United Daily News: The article is very short and probably only trivial coverage. Furthermore, it only lists awards that TECO got, does not go into any depth and reads like promotion.
Conclusion: I beleive that your third suggestion (first long article by CommonWealth) is the only article that can be used to asses the notability of TECO. However, a single source is not enough and the article is not entirely on topic as well. I have, however, not looked at your first suggestion (the book excerpt) yet. Rajix4 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider all of these sources to contribute to notability. Regarding the Taiwan News article, that Paul Shelton is a contributing writer does not detract from the article's reliability. The source covers a leadership struggle in the company and includes secondary analysis ("However, the FutureTECO campaign has an uphill battle ahead of it.") Coverage of a leadership struggle in a company is coverage of the company. The article is functionally independent of the company. Both articles in CommonWealth Magazine provide significant of TECO. The second article does not briefly mention TECO; it mentions the company's name "東元" 41 times. Regarding the United Daily News article, I cited it because it verifies that TECO was covered in an April 2023 report by MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) which strongly contributes to notability. The book excerpt strongly establishes notability because TECO is covered on six pages. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 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! 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Melts Cube

[edit]
Heat Melts Cube (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)

Unreleased track. No reliable sources provided, only citations from "Lost Media Wiki" which is an unreliable user generated site; and there's no concrete evidence of the song's existence. CycloneYoris talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also found nothing additional. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, agreed with @Left guide UzbukUdash (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say, DJ Speed (Eazy-E Afilliate) confirms as well as DJ Yella (Producer) Which proved existence. If people did research as much as I did, they would know, I also know… in interview, Eazy-E Refers to the diss. Lost Wiki page had the most info which is reliable despite being User Friendly. Also includes sources, just alike Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.155.153 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@216.20.155.153:
--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't buy the "DJ Yella confirmed the existence of this track" argument. If you listen to the interview (linked to in the Lost Media Wiki article), he just says that there's one instrumental that he has with no Eazy-E lyrics on it that might have been reserved for an Ice Cube diss track and he doesn't want to speculate much further. The whole article is based on speculation and is potentially misleading since it makes a number of unverified, and probably unverifiable, assertions. For instance, where is there any solid(ish) evidence that this supposed track is called "Heat Melts Cube"? The sourcing is horrendous : Lost Media Wiki is obviously unreliable. Pichpich (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguni (district)

[edit]
Arguni (district) (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 does not meet GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NPLACE. Noah 💬 00:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the subject not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria or NPLACE and in addition NPLACE does not supersede GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This seems like an incredibly arbitrary AfD, there are hundreds of thousands of places that fail GNG but are included on Wikipedia because they pass NPLACE. Noah 💬 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again NPLACE does not supersede GNG and to pass either one they sources of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources (IRS) need to be provided for verification.. Articles about places that fails GNG and is in the main space is because no one/editor yet to AfD the articles and it is NOT because they are in main space means they pass GNG. Thousand of article that fail GNG or SNG are in Wikipedia and they always CAN be AfD if anyone nominate them in regardless how long the articles in main space Wikipedia. There might be other languages have IRS about the place which I dont know know those languages, but if anyone can find them then add them in the article and let me know.05:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NPLACE. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Quick google search can easily found multiple independent coverage of this district. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems that, according to WP:NPLACE, GNG only matters in this evaluation if the article subject is not a legally recognized place. While gov sites might not establish notability, if they verify that this subject is legally recognized, then I think the editors arguing Keep have the stronger argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is an official local government area, and we routinely keep those even when, as in this case, they’re new (2010) and somewhat obscure. Not speaking Bahasa Indonesia is a hindrance with this but I did find a scholarly paper entitled “INTERNATIONAL SCALE INTEGRATED THEMATIC TOURISM DESTINATION DESIGN, KOKAS DISTRICT AND ARGUNI DISTRICT IN FAKFAK DISTRICT” , multiple references to it in this article, some coverage in thus study and will add other sources if I find them. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

[edit]
Dušica Bijelić (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 is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 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! 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AFT has any relevance to this AFD. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all tiny comprimario parts with no substantial singing (ie zero arias). To me, this does not meet the WP:SNG notability criteria at either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTRESS.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more participants here. I'm not sure what WP:AFT has to do with this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mass

[edit]
Isaac Mass (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 individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mass is still active (the fellow's not yet fifty), and is a political figure in the rural county in which I lived for several years. Further, the article used to be a lot more extensive before rampant page blanking by anon IPs. With that, I doubt many people beyond the city limits of Greenfield, Massachusetts have heard of him, nor that he could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People in politics aren't "inherently" notable just for existing, so the article's current form is obviously deeply inadequate if it just says that he exists and fails to even specify what political position he ever actually held in the first place — Ravenswing is correct that it's been longer in the past, but that history has him serving only at the municipal and county levels, which is not a free notability pass in the absence of much, much more reliable source coverage about the impact of that work than the article has ever shown. So there's no prior version of this that could be reverted to as a solution, because nothing that was ever in the article before satisfies the requirements of WP:NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. I did check old versions WP:BEFORE nominating, as this is obviously a gutted article. I also concluded there was no value in restoring any older versions, and the gutted version actualy portrays the subject in his most favorable light. JFHJr (㊟) 23:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, agreed: Mass' most prominent role as an elected official was as a city councilor in Greenfield, which is well under NPOL's requirements. Ravenswing 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat and Ravenswing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable local lawyer, I don't see any sources for this person. The pages histories have been deleted and re-created so many times, I gave up trying to figure out what a longer version of this article showed... Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nominator) WP:SNOW this process please, any available admin. Let's not waste anyone else's time on this over 6 more days. JFHJr (㊟) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If one actually types words into Google, one finds that Mass and his wife are now the owners of the historic Greenfield Garden Cinemas,[1][2] a plausible redirect target per WP:ATD-R. He received a "40 under 40" recognition from a regional business magazine[3] and his various civic appointments have received local coverage,[4] although unfortunately it appears that link rot or paywalls have obfuscated many other news articles from over 10 years ago (essentially a new dark age). --Animalparty! (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think it a pretty implausible redirect, actually. The page has minuscule views over its entire history, the Garden Cinema page doesn't even namedrop Mass, and local namedrops ≠ "significant coverage." Ravenswing 16:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and relate to the "dark age" part of @Animalparty!'s comment. There's a tendency for previously free articles to become dead or paywalled over time, or available only by subscription to proprietary archives, e.g. Proquest. I used to get very frustrated about this re WaPo, but now it's all subscriptionwalled. I've begun manually free-archiving new material in my creations for this reason. If you're here long enough, you see sources vanish. For situations other than this AfD, I try to archive decent sources in prior versions, which are sometimes removed just for being dead. I just didn't see any of that for this subject. YMMV. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Farragher, Thomas (November 14, 2019). "Saving the Garden movie house in Greenfield". Boston Globe.
  2. ^ Olson, Kris (15 April 2021). "Lawyer, wife reopen theater complex bought just before pandemic hit". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
  3. ^ "Isaac Mass". BusinessWest. April 23, 2013. ISSN 1049-9822.
  4. ^ "Greenfield lawyer Isaac Mass appointed to Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission". masslive.com. 15 March 2012.
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.