Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5

< November 04 November 06 >
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lee (darts player)

[edit]
Dave Lee (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:47, 15 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! 22:33, 22 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! 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:01, 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 redirect‎ to Sarai Alamgir#Villages. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balobanian

[edit]
Balobanian (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 a long time. I'm not seeing RS that show WP:V or notability, but I don't speak the relevant languages. A redirect to Sarai Alamgir might be suitable if the details can be verified, although this place is not mentioned at the target as far as I can tell. JMWt (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:46, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryang Hyon-ju

[edit]
Ryang Hyon-ju (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:00, 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 redirect‎ to 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ro Hak-su

[edit]
Ro Hak-su (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 fails WP:GNG and not updated since 2017. Simione001 (talk) 22:58, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon International School, Hennur

[edit]
New Horizon International School, Hennur (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)

Created by a single purpose editor. All the provided sources are directory listings and not indepth. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mozaic

[edit]
Mozaic (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. BoardGameGeek lists reviews from HALL 9000 and Rainy Day Games but they don't seem like reliable sources. Suggesting a redirect to Mosaic as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have completely rewritten this article and removed the copypaste tag. I was able to find one review on a editorially independent German game review site. There may be more sources out there, especially on European websites and in European magazines. Guinness323 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think H@LL9000 is a reliable source? It seems to be a self-published source. It isn't listed at WP:BGS. I don't see any credentials for the reviewer to qualify as "an established expert on the subject matter": [8]. Even then 1 review isn't enough. For example, I looked at magazine scans at Internet Archive, and found nothing: [9]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:11, 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 redirect‎ to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austerby

[edit]
Austerby (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)

Really cannot see any case for a separate article; this was until recently a redirect to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Which seem s appropriate. TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Austerby is described as a hamlet under the entry for Bourne in a Lincolnshire Trade Directory and appears on older Ordnance Survey maps. Austerby without "The" is a street name in The Austerby, Bourne. The ward's full name is Bourne Austerby. Pevsner has an Austerby Manor House as a titled entry, but notes it under Bourne. In a recent WikiProject UK geography discussion on whether UK wards required a separate article, most contributors thought they should be subject to passing the GNG - but one experienced editor was of the opinion wards come under WP:NPLACE and have a presumption of notability, so not clearcut. Close call but on balance, I support the nominator's redirect - to Bourne, Lincolnshire, though may change to keep, if further sources are put forward. Rupples (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:07, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Marys, Floyd County, Indiana

[edit]
Saint Marys, Floyd County, 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)

Actually labelled as "St. Marys Ch." on topos from the 1950s and earlier, it is indeed St. Mary of the Knobs Catholic Church, which after 200 years has a big barn of a church, a school (which they took back from the county) and a large cemetery. No town though. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Yong-jin

[edit]
Ri Yong-jin (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:03, 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 redirect‎ to 1992 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rim Hwa-young

[edit]
Rim Hwa-young (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:01, 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 keep‎.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnasium Neufeld

[edit]
Gymnasium Neufeld (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 a very long time. I don't speak relevant languages but I'm not seeing the substantial RS needed to meet the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, clearly not notable and needs significant cleanup- no infobox. This feels more like a draft. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a half-assed copy and paste (and translation) from the German Wikipedia, including the contents. The first paragraph of the history in the German article matches the one here. Procyon117 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I mean, it's a disaster right now, but sources [11] definitely exist for this [12] [13] [14] from just a brief search. Ignore the bad page grouping the coverage isn't just in the highlighted bits, lots of full page coverage. This took me less than five minutes. Lots of seemingly substantial hits in Google Books and I didn't even go past the second page of the Swiss newspaper archive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a significant coverage at page 23 of this source coupled with the other source PARAKANYAA pointed out. These are enough. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - From what we have so far, this is marginal, but as a rule of thumb, this is a school with 1,000 on role, open since 1966. My expectation is there is more than we have found, and so I am ready to !vote keep. The first thing to note is the German Wikipedia article is much fuller [15] and I have added an inter language expand template to link it to the page. But then, looking at the sourcing on that page, I was disappointed to find it was all primary and thus not much use for notability purposes. So then I looked at what PARAKANYAA found. I cannot review AC 41, but that issue has an article about the architecture of schools. Thus the coverage is, I expect, about the architecture of the new school building, which would accord with the date, as this was when the school was founded. That is one interesting source. Then there are three articles from Der Bund. Der Bund is a newspaper local to Bern. The first is about a stir caused by a couple of students doing chicken embryo experiments. It looks like this kicked off an animal rights kerfuffle, but was a storm in a teacup. What it does not have is anything we can write a school article from. The second tells us that in 1976 the school hosted some modern art by an artist. It is not a permanent fixture, and unless the school remains a home to works of notable modern art, I don't see how that could be used in the article either. The third is an article about cycle routes and the school gets a passing mention as a destination. So I wouldn't say any of those local news articles count towards notability. But again, that is on strict application of GNG or NORG. What the articles do show is that the school gets repeated mentions in local press (as you would expect) over the course of years. I expect there will be notable students, and other coverage. The architecture source could be counted as one (although is the interest in the building sustained?) The article can be expaned from the German page, but sourcing remains problematic. Problematic but not impossible. We should probably keep it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, there were a lot more hits on both Google Books and the Swiss newspaper archive I looked at, I just grabbed the ones that had headings that talked about it on the first page. I will check again later today. Switzerland had at the time a relatively peculiar media ecosystem where there were only a handful of non-regional papers; I believe Der Bund was fairly prestigious at the time but I'm basing that off a 1960s article I read a while back so I don't know how applicable that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to remind all friends of the following. WP:ORGCRIT (which applies to schools) insists that coverage needs to be significant. The nutshell at the top of WP:ORG insists that the coverage must not be trivial or incidental. So the first question is whether the sources offered above are trivial and incidental or substantial. I say that coverage about an art exhibition is trivial. I say that coverage about a minor event is incidental. I say that any further coverage about ex-students is trivial and/or incidental. I know this is a hard standard to reach but this is the current consensus at WP:NSCHOOL. It has to be substantial. A history of the school. Substantial news articles about the school. Are there likely to be those in existence? That’s the only question we are to answer. I say no. Unless someone can prove that there have has substantial coverage of this kind, then we are clasping at straws and we should !delete until such time as third party RS give this kind of coverage. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there likely to be those in existence? I think I was clear that my weak keep is based on my belief that the answer to that is likely to be yes. But certainly not proven to be. I would certainly support a relist for a week to allow for more source discovery. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think it is likely to be yes? Unless you can show that there is an offline book on the history of this school, it seems to me that the only argument you are making is because of the age of the school substantial coverage must exist. I don’t think that’s a given at all. It’s entirely possible that the only coverage going back decades is trivial. And the onus is on the !keep voters to show that the sources exist - even if none of us can actually access or open them - in order to WP:V the contents of the page as well as to show it is notable according to RS. JMWt (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was quite clear on the basis of my comments and see no need to re-iterate. The US embassy in Switzerland host this speech given at the school [16]. Also there is a history, in the form of a documentary (a secondary source) here [17] but as it is a visual documentary it gives little to write an article from. There were public viewings of this film in at least 3 Bern cinemas. The 2016 celebration this was made for may well have elicited other materials that might be useful for the article. Finally, although I mentioned NORG, and those are the appropriate SNGs for schools, note that NSCHOOL says a school must meet either NORG or GNG. We are not even at a clear GNG pass yet, but based on everything I have seen, I doubt this school will fail. There is a certain amount of language bias here. An American school of this calibre would have attracted a string of keeps by now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. There are press reports below the information about the film on that website, that appears to suggest that it is notable. JMWt (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be pedantic, NORG says schools "must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both", not that NORG is the only test for schools. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Alternative names could include Kantonsschule Neufeld, Kanti Neufeld, Neufeld-Gymnasium, and Gymer Neufeld. Searching for sources right now, I suspect a huge amount of SIGCOV exists. Toadspike [Talk] 10:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many sources from the Berner Zeitung on a renovation and expansion of the school [18][19][20]. SRF has over 100 articles that mention this school, the best examples are [21][22][23]. Add Parakanyaa's excellent finds at e-newspaperarchives.ch and I can't even be bothered to use my library access to the NZZ to confirm the search results there, since the GNG has clearly been surpassed. Courtesy pings for JMWt, Cooldudeseven7, and Procyon117. Toadspike [Talk] 10:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to check 20 Minuten, they have [24][25][26][27]. This list is not exhaustive. Toadspike [Talk] 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus some more trivial mentions [28][29][30]. At this point my linkspam is definitely excessive, but since Parakanyaa's sources were not enough, I figured I may as well make my point clear. Toadspike [Talk] 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Linkspam seems right! :) Berner Zeitung presumably counts as local news when discussing the renovation of a Bern school. Much of this coverage is just news reporting, which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARYNEWS) and thus not relevant to notability discussions. What we need from sources is the information from which an article will be written. Thus articles about the first day back after lockdown or a day without mobile phones, or discovery of mold are just not going to cut it. Any attempt to synthesise an encyclopaedic article from these primary sources would take us into WP:OR. But... you found one gem in there. «Musste drei Wochen lang den Schulhof wischen» (2016) is about the 50th anniversary, contains information about notable alumni, memories and history. It is not a long piece, but it contains just the kind of information a page can be written from. It may also indicate there are other useful materials from 2016 that may be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you being serious? We both know that, whether the historians like it or not, newspaper articles are the primary way the GNG is met here at AfD. (pun intended) All precedent, practicality, and common sense aside, I would argue several of the sources I linked above go beyond run-of-the-mill "local news" coverage, and I have now also found this piece on expansion of the Gymis, this very long article on proposed construction sites etc. from 1958, a long piece discussing the school's architecture and artwork, a celebratory piece on the completion of the school. Dozens more can be found at a search like this. The archive links don't highlight the whole article – scroll around to see more. If you need more opinions and analysis than this, I'll have to find an Australian tabloid article or something. Toadspike [Talk] 21:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Sorry if I sound aggressive, I know that you !voted "weak keep" above, I just think the standard you're applying is many times higher than the norm at AfD.) Toadspike [Talk] 21:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and so anyone can express an opinion that an article about mould being found in a school building allows it to meet notability criteria, but the point I made is that you cannot write articles from such run of the mill primary sources. And regardless of how people vote, primary sources do not count towards notability. See WP:SIRS. As for what historians think: primary sources are the bread and butter of the historian. If we were writing histories here, we would certainly make use of primary sources. But that is because historians are doing original research, and the synthesis is what they are paid to do. Encyclopaedic articles are different. We don't do original research. We let the historians and others do that for us, and then we use the secondary sources to write our tertiary articles. If people do not know that, they may be inclined to vote to keep articles that cannot be written encyclopaedically, and we might have a load of stubs hanging around. This, in my view, is not one such case, and I pointed out that one of your sources was good. But, again, what matters is that we find sources from which an article can be written. This evening I have been finding sources for Desert View High School. Take a look at what I found (the article had no secondary sources before now). Those are the kinds of things we need. But again, the short history article, even though in a newspaper, was both secondary and significant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems there have also been (at least) two books written about the Gymnasium Neufeld, one titled Musealneufeld: 1969-2009: Kunst an einem Berner Gymnasium, and the other a 70-page research work called Das Kernfachsystem als Oberstufenreform: Bericht über eine Erhebung am Literar- und Realgymnasium Bern-Neufeld und am Gymnasium Köniz von 1976. The former might not be independent, the latter is definitely an entirely independent secondary source purely concerned with analyzing the curriculum of the school in 1976. Toadspike [Talk] 21:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. No time to look at these now, but that would appear to seal it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:59, 12 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article as sources have been found that help to establish notability. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flatiron School

[edit]
Flatiron School (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)

Run of the mill bootcamp, coverage is all highly routine and of questionable independence. I can see maybe one source that's barely usable, but the rest are far short of what we'd need for NCORP, and we definitely need multiple. It might be possible to redirect this somewhere, but I can't think of any plausible targets. Also probably going to nom Chester Ismay later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Eisenmann, Thomas; AlQahtani, Halah (January 2017). "Flatiron School". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2024-07-21. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      This is a 19-page Harvard Business Review case study of Flatiron School. The abstract notes: "In late 2016, the founders of Flatiron School, a startup offering 12-week coding bootcamps, are formulating their growth strategy. Their new online-only program has matched the excellent job placement results for their in-person bootcamps. Should Flatiron shift investment to aggressively expand online or grow online and in-person bootcamps in tandem? Should they pursue opportunities to sell online programs to universities and corporations, in addition to their direct-to-consumer offer?"

    2. Mitchell, Josh (2016-08-12). "Coding Boot Camps Attract Tech Companies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-06-18. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "In a graffiti-splashed classroom in lower Manhattan, students are learning to write computer code at a private academy whose methods and results have caught the eye of Silicon Valley and the Obama administration. The Flatiron School’s 12-week course costs $15,000, but earns students no degree and no certificate. What it does get them, at an overwhelming rate, is a well-paying job. Nearly everyone graduates, and more than nine in 10 land a job within six months at places like Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Kickstarter. Average starting salary: $74,447. ... At Flatiron, students spend 10 to 12 hours a day for 12 weeks on projects such as building a duplicate version of online-review site Yelp from scratch. The school’s staff calls tech firms throughout the week, both to promote their graduates’ abilities and to learn employers’ constantly shifting needs, including what software they use."

    3. Johnson, Sydney (2017-10-20). "Who's Holding Coding Bootcamp Accountability Accountable?". EdSurge. Archived from the original on 2024-08-20. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "That showed this week when New York-based Flatiron School, a coding bootcamp, was fined $375,000 by the state’s attorney general for misleading advertising and operating without a license. Flatiron is hardly the first bootcamp to come under fire for falsely advertising its outcomes. What makes this a particularly ironic case, though, is that Flatiron is part of the Quality Assurance Taskforce, a consortium of 25 organizations that include non-profit universities, investors and coding bootcamps and has a stated goal “to drive industry-wide accountability and transparency” for non-traditional learning providers. ... Regardless, Flatiron’s membership in an accountability program didn’t render it immune from its own violations and a resulting inquiry by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."

    4. Lohr, Steve (2017-08-24). "As Coding Boot Camps Close, the Field Faces a Reality Check". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-25. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "The Flatiron School in New York may have discovered one path. Founded in 2012, Flatiron has a single campus in downtown Manhattan and its main offering is a 15-week immersive coding program with a $15,000 price tag. More than 95 percent of its 1,000 graduates there have landed coding jobs. In late 2015, the co-founders, Adam Enbar and Avi Flombaum, decided to try an online-only offering, Learn.co. The tuition is $1,500 a month. Students go at their own pace, and on average complete the course in seven months, putting in about 800 hours. Tuition charges stop after eight months — and there are instructors online 16 hours a day for help and advice. ... The school was the subject of a Harvard Business School case study, published this year, which found that the early success of the online-only course has “expanded strategic options for Flatiron.” But just how much is uncertain. “It’s pretty clear that they can do it at the scale they have,” said Thomas Eisenmann, a professor and lead author of the study. “What’s not clear is whether it can go from a hundred or a few hundred to thousands and thousands.”"

    5. Swarns, Rachel L. (2014-06-23). "Creating Unexpected Opportunities in a Recovering Economy: Flatiron School Program Expands New York's Web Developer Ranks". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-04-26. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "Then a friend invited her to a meet-up for computer programmers at the Flatiron School in Manhattan. ... At the Flatiron School, which trains people in software coding, Ms. Eady met female programmers and programmers of all shades. She met musicians who were coding, finance guys who were coding. She met creative people who talked about building things — new apps, new websites, new ways to tell stories. ... When she discovered that the city was offering fellowships for people interested in learning coding at Flatiron, she jumped at the chance. So did about 1,200 other applicants. The program is run by the New York City Department of Small Business Services, which contracted with Flatiron to offer a free, 22-week course to New Yorkers who earned less than $50,000 and had never worked as web developers. (The course normally costs $12,000.) Twenty-eight people made the final cut, including Ms. Eady."

    6. Mullin, Joe (2017-10-19). "One of the original coding schools must pay $375k over employment claims: New York's Flatiron School was ordered to alter website, hit with a hefty fine". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2023-06-10. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "Flatiron's application for licensing its second campus, opened in 2013, didn't go smoothly. In June 2016, Flatiron reached out by e-mail to inquire about its second license. New York's Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision responded two months later with a cease-and-desist letter telling the school to stop operations. Flatiron didn't stop operations while it was getting its licensing in order, so the Bureau held that the school's second campus operated from 2013 until 2017 without a license."

    7. Thompson, Clive (2019). Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World. New York: Penguin Books. pp. 352–353. ISBN 978-0-7352-2058-4. Retrieved 2024-10-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Avi Flombaum is trying to figure out one of these new routes. He's the founder of the Flatiron School, a boot camp that takes people and, for about $15,000 in tuition, puts them through an intense 15-week training curriculum. When I visit their campus in the Wall Street district of Manhattan, about 200 students sit at long tables, working in pairs as they puzzle through the nuances of Ruby. One student is sketching out a snippet of code for his partner with a dry-erase marker, writing right on the table itself. ... He wound up getting a bunch of his students jobs, and thought, hmm, maybe he could scale this up. He and a partner launched the Flatiron School in 2012, and since then it has graduated almost 2,000 students. Flatiron is, like many boot camps, renowned for being an absolute cram of knowledge. Before admission, students are encouraged to complete a free 15-week online course that introduces them to the basics of Ruby or JavaScript. While they're in session, many stay late into the evening, working on projects with colleagues. About half of the students are women, and most are young, including students who finished college but decided coding was a better bet for employment than the subject they majored in; others had been in the workforce but didn't like their job and wanted to switch careers. One recent student came from a pig farm in Texas."

    8. Sprinkle, Timothy (2015). Kelley, Erin (ed.). Screw the Valley: A Coast-to-Coast Tour of America's New Tech Startup Culture: New York, Boulder, Austin, Raleigh, Detroit, Las Vegas, Kansas City. Dallas: BenBella Books. pp. 82–83. ISBN 978-1-940363-30-1. Retrieved 2024-10-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "That's the approach that Avi Flombaum is taking at his coding startup, the Flatiron School, which moved from the Silicon Alley district near Union Square to the southern tip of Manhattan in late 2013 as part of a city-backed program to bring hipper, more growth-oriented companies to the Financial District. After working on a series of startups, he created the Flatiron School in 2012 after teaching a few programming classes on Skillshare (which is run by a friend) and helping out at General Assembly. The whole operation is self-funded and it charges about $10,000 for a three-month, full-time course that promises to teach normal people how to code, regardless of their background."

    9. Kessler, Sarah (2013-04-18). "How Flatiron School Makes New Programmers–In Just 12 Weeks". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "In September, he cofounded something between the two extremes. Called the Flatiron School, the program offers 12 weeks of full-time, intensive instruction (plus pre-work) “designed to turn you into a web developer” for a $10,000 tuition fee. The school’s only classroom, located in a walk-up near Madison Square Park in New York City, looks more like a startup. Some students work at Ikea desks pushed together to create one long table. Others sit on a sofa with their laptops. About 80% of the class has a background in either writing, music, or photography. Two are pregnant. One is a former professional poker player. Another is a founder of SparkNotes."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flatiron School 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) 11:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm locked out of my library account because I didn't reset my password when they asked me to (oops, though I really do wish they didn't make me do it every three months) so it might be a few days before I can look at the Harvard Business Review article, but I had seen the news articles, and especially the Fast Company one seemed pretty rubbish to me (like, in terms of meeting SIRS. I'm sure it's interesting to people outside of that context). It's mostly quotes, the genre is more in line with a human-interest story, so while it does have a little bit of secondary content, I don't see it meeting the other three criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Harvard Business Review study is pretty convincing on its own. It gets plenty of coverage in books, largely as case studies, but those are still significant. Newspaper sources need some careful evaluation, but the sources provided by Cunard are multiple, include articles in papers of record, and appear to be independent. There is secondary information here, and so GNG is quite clearly met, and these reviews are good enough to meat WP:ORGDEPTH too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical assessment of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohei Suzaki

[edit]
Kyohei Suzaki (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)

Rightfully prodded by User:Spiderone back in 2009. The claim to notability, playing 6 games in Japan's second league and 1 cup game, is very weak. The sources (including those found in ja:wiki) are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:45, 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 delete‎. Consensus to Delete. Article creator has been blocked for promotional editing/Spam. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokudo Electric

[edit]
Sokudo Electric (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)

Promotional article from an SMM company using press releases, interviews, product and facility launches, and other announcements. No coverage in reliable sources. No coverage in independent reliable sources, fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, these coverages are all reliable, they are posted on reliable media sources like news medias, print magazines. please feel free to check all the links before making a decision. Pitchonepr SMM (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at the very least Delete the sections of the article that are just listing products, but the article as a whole reads somewhat promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLeaning keep. I cannot evaluate the reliability of most of the sources used in the article but some of them sources that look alright, like Rest of World and News18. The topic of the article seems notable. Jeraxmoira, are you saying that all of the sources are unreliable? Can you explain why you think so? Needless to say all the promotional fluff that is not supported by sources or is supported only by the company's press releases should be removed. Alaexis¿question? 22:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the proper process for dealing with the WP:COI has not been followed by Pitchonepr SMM, I urge them to disclose their conflict of interest immediately (full disclosure, I came here because asked me a question at my talk page). Alaexis¿question? 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, the Rest of World article is an interview and the News18 article is a press release. They do not pass the WP:SIRS check that is conducted for articles about organizations and companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira, yeah, you're right about these two sources. And what about this piece? It seems to address the subject directly and in depth. Alaexis¿question? 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good source with a byline and it also seems to be a magazine feature. But, I wouldn’t be okay with it, as it’s an interview that would fail the WP:SIRS check. i.e., it is not completely independent of the article subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote to Leaning Keep. I understand your points but still think that this topic is notable. Alaexis¿question? 08:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale seems like WP:PPOV to me, as the author of the article reached out to you earlier through the mentorship module. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just reminding participants that a promotional tone and unencyclopedic sections can be edited out, and are not a valid reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:37, 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 List of Major League Baseball career putouts leaders. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a pitcher leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a pitcher leaders (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)

Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders, which resulted in the lists by position being trimmed and merged to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. The top 100 players at each position, split into their own articles, and then a list of other hall of famers at their positions and relevant stats, is more narrow a scope than is appropriate. All of these are basically copies of leader tables (link) from Baseball Reference. The top 100 players at each position, in their own lists, is excessive, and Wikipedia is not a database. Proposing that the relevant lists be trimmed and merged to their own sections at List of Major League Baseball career putouts leaders. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a catcher leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a first baseman leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a second baseman leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a third baseman leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a shortstop leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as an outfielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a left fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a right fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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! 21:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iikka Miettinen

[edit]
Iikka Miettinen (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 notable football manager, WP:TOOSOON at best. Held positions such as analyst, U19 assistant, assistant and U19 coach. The sources are not independent or significant; the YLE piece is not about Miettinen, but about Roberto Mancini with Miettinen's reports about the manager. The Aamulehti piece is about an U17 club tournament, there's nothing notable about that. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumpei Kakuta

[edit]
Kumpei Kakuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, I don't see this player meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, spending one season in Singapore and then moving on to the fifth tier of Japanese football. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG, I'm finding only passing mentions in much larger articles (and not many of them, either). AntiDionysius (talk) 20:48, 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 keep‎ after the copyright violations were fixed; 27 previous revisions deleted. Special thanks to Ruud Buitelaar for his meticulous work. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers (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)

Possible copyright infringement. The Dutch Wikipedia article was deleted because it was not clear where and when the text was first published and by whom; copyright infringement could not be ruled out. Same applies here; the first version of the english-language text is a straightforward translation from a Dutch original, possibly written by the same author of the Wikipedia articles, that appears to have been published in 2021 by the Bibliotheek van Zeeland. It has to be assumed that the Bibliotheek van Zeeland is the owner of the copyright. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deletion discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. And paragraph 3 and 4 of this publication, is the original version. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the copyright issues can be resolved and the page rewritten. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will trust Ruud's research on the copyrights. Thank you for investing time in this, Ruud! No objection to draftification, if someone wants to work on this. I have basically moved texts around so did not mitigate any copyvio issues. Only structural ones. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated, @Gidonb! I have mixed feelings about this. The topic of this article, SvE for short, is notable. Thanks to your effort to write a lead section, it survived the first AfD discussion. I am sure that researchers on slave trade would be very interested to know more about this trading company, that was small and short-lived, but certainly relevant. What needs to be clarified is if this article, published by Zeeland Library, is copyright protected. The third and fourth paragraphs, as well as the literature and references, are identical to the first version of this WP article on the SvE. If I understand the disclaimer correctly, the text is not intended for commercial use and the library does not take responsibility for improper use. In my view, the text cannot be published as is on Wikipedia. The Encyclopedie van Zeeland, another publication by Zeeland Library, also carries the same text. Since the EvZ does not have a disclaimer, we have to assume that the EvZ is copyright protected. For a Wikipedia article on SvE, the text needs more work. In my view, for example, the section on Essequibo at the start of the fourth Anglo-Dutch war, is only indirectly relevant for the SvE. The two main sections of the article really are two different topics. Unfortunately, this article cannot be cleaned up. It has to be deleted for copyright violation. A new article has to be created from scratch. I will have to leave that to someone else. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some consensus here that the topic itself is likely notable. If that's the case, copyright violations, if any, can be removed editorially. Feel free to trim the article down to a stub if needed. No need to wait until the AfD is closed. We can then delete any revision that included the violating content, without the need to remove the subject. Please note that per WP:DRAFTNO, draftification is not a valid approach to dealing with copyright violations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. For the record, nobody suggested draftication as a solution for this AfD. What I said is that IF SOMEONE WOULD REQUEST to work on it, this should be allowed. Please stop using relist and summary comments to distort the opinions of AfD participants and assign them opinions they do not hold, or insert one's opinion after the fact, and attack various participants in debates. If someone holds a personal opinion on how to respond to an AfD, this should be shared like all other participants. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to draftification, if someone wants to work on this is a direct quote from you. No one is "distorting" it. Whether someone wants to work on this or not, it will not be draftified if it contains a copyright violation. That is policy, not my personal opinion. If you have a problem with that, start an RfC to change policy. When an AfD participant suggests a course of action that contradicts policy, I will often point it out, to allow them an opportunity to amend it, rather than simply discard their argument when closing. Owen× ☎ 08:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection if someone wants this is not the same as suggesting that this should be draftified out of thin air. My opinion was crystal clear: delete. You distorted that and attacked me from the relist comment as you do from closing comments, as you do with others. THIS HAS TO STOP. Civility should be preserved at Wikipedia and you should not habitually put words into the mouths and attack others. gidonb (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term draftification is used on Wikipedia to denote moving an article from mainspace to draftspace. There is no such thing as draftified out of thin air, and you using the phrase suggests a gap in your knowledge about our terminology. Gidonb, we all make mistakes. When our mistake is pointed out, some of us show gratitude for learning a new thing, and amend our earlier statement. Others double down or try to back-pedal, while lashing out and accusing those trying to correct us of "personal attack". I have no intention of reducing my participation on the project just to appease you. Civility should indeed be preserved, and if you find it difficult to collaborate with others here based on our policies, I suggest you find a better use for your time. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to close this discussion as Keep and remove all versions from September 20 to October 29 because they contain possible copyright violations. In my version of November 5th a paragraph was left out that was a verbatim translation of a section of the 1942 article by A. Wisse; other straightforward translations from the publications by Library of Zeeland were rephrased. I have added those publications as sources in the latest version. I think the article is now no longer a word-for-word translation. I have learned a thing or two from this discussion. Let´s move on.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:45, 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 speedy deleted‎ by Ponyo per criterion G5. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhana Afrin Ayshe

[edit]
Farhana Afrin Ayshe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no SIGCOV coverage of the subject, failing to meet WP:GNG. Does this one award make her notable? I don’t think so, because if you look at the article Miss Tourism International, most titleholders do not have a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I believe the subject fails to meet WP:ANYBIO. GrabUp - Talk 19:17, 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 keep‎. The sources are poor but the argument that the subject meets WP:NSUBPOL has not been refuted so this is a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prabha Misra

[edit]
Prabha Misra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed a WP:BEFORE search, and poorly sourced. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi what is a WP:before search? 82.6.40.205 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BEFORE search is a search done before you nominate an article for deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one source. How else can I improve this article? 82.6.40.205 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources that aren't directory listings. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this considered a directory listing? https://rajasthanlink.com/VanuDetails/ajmer/assembly-2/57038/prabha-mishra-mla 82.6.40.205 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't assess that, as I only know English. You can use non-English sources, to be clear; I just can't assess them. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:49, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Education Society, Malleswaram

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bangalore Education Society, Malleswaram (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:NSCHOOL. One source is a directory listing, the other is not significant coverage of this school. Since the last AfD we are a lot more stricter on school notability. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @MelanieN: the only participant in the previous AfD who is still active.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:11, 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 redirect‎ to Sun TV Network. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Neo

[edit]
Sun Neo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any SIGCOV sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject. The article primarily cites unreliable sources like Tellychakkar and IWMBuzz. The one reliable source, Bollywood Hungama, does not provide significant coverage of the channel; it merely announces its launch. All sources are simply announcing the launch. Totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A redirect to its parent company, Sun TV Network, might be a better option per WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 18:58, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Kabongolo

[edit]
Brooklyn Kabongolo (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. Sources are primary sources that do not show notability. Only has 9 appearances at 5th tier of English soccer. Demt1298 (talk) 18:40, 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 delete‎. In this discussion, the delete position has been significantly more persuasively argued. However, this is obviously not a unanimous opinion. Those who believe this topic ought to be handled on Wikipedia may want to try writing about it in relevant parent articles, and spinning it out into a separate article only if there is clear consensus that the result would not violate WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH. asilvering (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)

[edit]
Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) (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:FRINGE theory and also violation of neutral point of view.--Fenikals (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, doesn't really seem like a fringe article, and I don't see how it violates NPOV. Some explanation would be good.
Gvssy (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the statement above, this article is written using different sources, highlight the aspects in which you feel that the article violates WP:NPOV.
Dushnilkin (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unsubstantiated claims, no evidence presented. The article is based mostly on solid sources.
Alaexis¿question? 22:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the list of RS used in the article now which demonstrate that the topic is not fringe at all. In fact there is a consensus in all the sources writing about this period regarding these events. Alaexis¿question? 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No doubts, there was a lot of violence in Chechnya in 1991-1994, just as in many other countries. But was it specifically anti-Russian ("Russian" means ethnicity I assume) or against non-Chechens in general? Or was it at all, as a coherent subject described in RS? I do not see anything stronger that RIA News and propaganda claims that were used as a pretext for starting the First Chechen war. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is not factual, it just lists Russian claims as to supposed persecution of ethnic Russians in then de facto independent Chechnya. We know that the 1990-s in ex-USSR were a tumultuous time marked, among other things, by high a level of crime and violence, but this article completely fails to show on any factual material that level of violent crime in Chechnya was any higher than elsewhere in post-Soviet countries, nor that non-Chechens suffered from it disproportionately compared to Chechens, nor, even less, that it was culturally or racially motivated and targeted specifically against ethnic Russians. The article does not cite any Chechen sources, and most of its sources are Russian official and pro-government media, that cannot be reasonably seen as a reliable source of information, especially on topics such as this, and especially now that we already know that those claims of persecution of ethnic Russians were used to create ideological pretext for the First Chechen War, the MO that Russian propaganda has employed many times since then. As such, the article fully satisfies the definition of WP:FRINGE and breaks WP:NPOV, and has no business to exist in Wikipedia in its current form. Perhaps some parts of it can be merged, with a bit of rewrite, into First Chechen War#Origins.--Goren (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Was there news about crime in Chechnya? Did Chechnya declare independence from Russia? Were ethnic Russians victimized by crimes? Yes, yes, and probably yes. Drawing connections between these ideas is a combination of Conspiracy theory and Russian propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reliably sourced article that is supposed to stay. Your disagreement with the content should be resolved on talk page, not AfD. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - maybe it should be part of First Chechen War? Not sure about the NPOV issues, im not a topic expert, but unless the article is truly beyond repair, WP:TNT should not be invoked. Some of the links are hard to assess as whether they are reliable or not, especially as some are specifically from the Russian state government Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ola and others seem to make a point. I still have no clue though how to evaluate the claims in the article and if WP:TNT could be invoked, but I will withdraw my vote for now.
    I will comment that nobody else has used WP:TNT argument, and if the article is notable, it likely should be kept on that basis alone and allowed to be editted and fixed by wider wikipedia community. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluethricecreamman, for sure the article contains some questionable sources but in order to decide whether it should be deleted we should be looking at the *best* ones - does the topic receive significant coverage in them. Please see the list of such sources used in the article below. Alaexis¿question? 22:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The article’s content heavily relies on sources that are either state-sponsored or lack independent corroboration, specifically Russian government claims that have been widely critiqued as propaganda. Scholars have argued that these narratives were used to justify military actions, as seen in other contexts like Donbas, where Russia similarly accused Ukraine of anti-Russian "ethnic cleansing." Dunlop, for instance, who could be considered an absolute expert in Soviet and Russian politics/conflicts observes that such reports "could scarcely be imagined" as anything other than a tool to provoke conflict. The article lacks reliable, independent sources confirming such high levels of anti-Russian violence and over-relies on Russian official narratives. As such, it fails to meet the standards expected in journalistic, scholarly, historical, or Wikipedia contexts. As others have pointed out, the article does not establish that violence in Chechnya disproportionately targeted ethnic Russians or was driven by racial animus rather than broader post-Soviet instability. As it stands, the article primarily echoes state propaganda without balanced perspective or credible verification, making it unsuitable in its current form. Additionally, I have presented substantial evidence on the talk page, dissecting several of the article’s claims as fringe or unreliable. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. The core claims are supported by solid RS (see the section below). Alaexis¿question? 22:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has been up for an unnecessary amount of time despite it containing outright Russian state propaganda sources, i recommend people to read the talk page where many sources are dissected and shown to be propaganda or the sources do not mention what is in the article. This article started as an almost copy paste version of the same article on the Russian Wikipedia site, and even there the article was eventually deleted due to it's poor use of sources (link), as is the case with this version on English Wikipedia. If you want a small glimpse on the sources then check the sources for this extreme claim that "At least 46,000 individuals became de facto slaves", source number one is Russian state propaganda channel called "Vesti" which is now blocked in many countries. The second one is a Russian blog/news site called "www.ng.ru" which is not known for its unbiased reporting. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this does seem to have been a thing discussed in RS as a phenomenon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The core claims of the article are based on RS such as

  • Chechnya. Calamity in the Caucasus. By Carlotta Gall, Thomas de Waal · 1998 (just added to the article)
  • Chechnya. Life in a War-Torn Society by Valery Tishkov, University of California Press, 2004 (just added to the article)
  • Hughes, James (2013). Chechnya: From Nationalism to Jihad
  • Dunlop, John Barrett (1998). Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict. Cambridge University Press.

Basically every books that describes the situation in Chechnya in 1991-1994 talks about it. Alaexis¿question? 22:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Calamity in the Caucasus by Carlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal, far from fully support claims of ethnic violence, actually highlights how Russia’s narrative around Chechnya conflated general crime with targeted ethnic violence to justify military action. Gall and de Waal note that Russians left primarily due to economic collapse and social changes rather than a targeted campaign. While they mention violence, they point out that Chechens, Dagestanis, Jews, Armenians, and others also suffered. The authors cite the Russian Interior Ministry (surely not RS) and the White Book—but critique the White Book sharply, calling it “misleading” for presenting general post-Soviet crime as anti-Russian policy. They argue it was central to Russia’s propaganda, selectively portraying events to legitimize intervention by framing Chechens as inherently violent. The White Book has already been debunked by Dunlop to be unreliable and state propaganda in the talk page of the article, which I recommend people to read.
2. This view aligns with John B. Dunlop’s findings in Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict, as he directly challenges the idea of "anti-Russian violence" or "ethnic cleansing," showing how these narratives were pushed by Russia to justify intervention and frame Chechens as aggressors. So I don't know why you even mention him as a source for this.
3. Tishkov’s position within the Russian state apparatus raises doubts about his impartiality. Tishkov notably even acknowledges meeting with Putin and receiving a briefing on Chechnya in 2000. While Tishkov references respected scholars like Dunlop and Lieven—who have critiqued false Russian claims of targeted ethnic violence—he does nothing to engage with their critiques, instead leaning on the Russian narrative. Even Tishkov’s own statements seem to undermine the article’s core claims of ethnic violence. For example, on page 91, he admits that “early victims of the Chechen ‘national revolution’—Russians living in Grozny—were victims not because of their ethnicity but because they had attractive possessions,” indicating that violence wasn’t ethnically targeted. He also acknowledges that other ethnic groups, including Chechens, were frequently victims of violence, which suggests that the post-Soviet instability affected a broad range of communities. Given these critiques he is not a reliable source on this subject, as there are better sources which I have already quoted in the talk page of the article as well as here
4. Hughes, James (2013). Chechnya: From Nationalism to Jihad, he's literally quoting Tishkov as a source. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's perfectly possible for something to be at the same time real and exploited by propaganda. In fact this is how propaganda usually works, it takes a kernel of truth and then spins a narrative around it.
On the meta level, the argument "source X uses Russian data, therefore we can disregard it" is fallacious. Scholars use interviews, primary sources, Chechen data, Russian data when writing books. If a distinguished scholar like Jim Hughes uses Tishkov in a book published by University of Pennsylvania Press it's a violation of WP:OR to say "I think Tishkov is untrustworthy, therefore this source should be discarded".
Gall and De Waal make it clear that Russians were the most vulnerable group (p.115)
As to Dunlop, he has a whole chapter called Toward an ethnocratic Chechen state. He also makes it clear that the Russians were suffering more than the natives (p. 137)
. Alaexis¿question? 22:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not merely that sources "use Russian data". The issue is when they rely on data produced or manipulated by state actors known for using such claims to advance political aims. In the case of Tishkov, his government ties and lack of engagement with the critiques of this leads the question of impartiality. If Hughes cites Tishkov without a critical lens, this doesn’t elevate Tishkov’s objectivity. It rather shows that Hughes’s work may inherit some of these biases. That's why you prioritize much better sources like Dunlop who have conducted the investigative and analytical work. Additionally, while Gall and De Waal note that Russians were a vulnerable group, they do not equate this with ethnic cleansing or widespread, targeted ethnic violence. In fact, Gall and De Waal specifically mention that Russians left Chechnya due to economic collapse and social upheaval, rather than ethnic targeting. Moreover, they emphasize that post-Soviet criminality affected Chechens and other ethnicities as well, making it clear that the instability was a broader societal issue, not a campaign directed solely against Russians. If you claim otherwise then this is simply WP:OR on your part.
Regarding Dunlop’s mention of an “ethnocratic state,” this simply refers to a government dominated by the majority ethnic group, i.e the Chechens. The lines you’re quoting aren’t Dunlop’s own words, they’re an excerpt from an essay by “Vadim Korotkov” (whom I could not find any information about). Dunlop includes this perspective to present various viewpoints, but he doesn’t endorse it as fact. In fact, he goes on to clarify that Russians were not the only victims of criminality in Chechnya, Chechens themselves also suffered. Dunlop later even estimates that the true number of Russian victims during those years is likely fewer than 100, directly challenging mass anti-Russian violence. He dedicates a whole section to refuting this myth. So your interpretation of his work seems like a reach. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you know who Korotkov is is irrelevant. You can't cheerypick the things you like from Dunlop's book. In any case he also says The lack of effectiveness of the law enforcement organs in Chechnya left the Russian-language populace unprotected and adrift.
The article doesn't say that it was ethnic cleansing, so it's a red herring. Alaexis¿question? 21:44, 11 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'm closing this as No consensus as the nominator is now arguing to Keep this article but there is still an argument for a Weak Delete or Userfy this article. Rather than an additional relist, let's just close this discussion. Good luck to the editors who wish to continue working on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cymmerman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Anna Cymmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@dxneo Michael is citing an WP:SNG which is another accepted pathway to establishing notability other than WP:GNG. This is perfectly fine, although I note that the article currently cites no independent sources supporting the SNG being cited. We still need independent sources to prove an SNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for editors to supply other sources that could establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete or userfy/draftify if Michael Bednarek plans on fixing the sourcing issues raised, but needs more time. The subject might be notable, but the referencing is too poor to verify most claims at present. PS. Polish online encyclopedia of theater has a bit of info on her, including on one award ([31]), it mentions three news pieces, but only one seems to have WP:SIGCOV: [32]. That article does call her a "star of the Łódź theater scence", and her being chosen to sing at the Olympics seems to suggest she is notable - if someone can dig for more sources, and check for possible OR in the article. Ping me if it is improved and I'll revise my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mined the existing citations for a few more assertions, added 2 more sources, and removed claims that I couldn't source. Bottom line: there's very little press coverage about her, but there's no doubt that she has performed numerous leading roles at numerous opera houses. I don't accept that the Grand Theatre, Łódź, or the Elektroniczna Encyklopedia Teatru Polskiego are regarded as non-independent sources (my point above and previously). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek You didn't make this claim earlier with supporting evidence. All that was in the article was the website of a theatre where the subject works which is a non-independent source. A specialized encyclopedia entry was just added by you to the article after you made your earlier keep vote. That is evidence of independent significant coverage, which is exactly what I have been asking for.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I added the encyclopedia as a reference a week ago. Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ymblanter for adding a good source to prove notability. I see now you added it on November 6. That still doesn't change the point that Michael's keep vote was made without evidence in October, and that I (nor anybody else) never referred to an encyclopedia as a non-independent source which is what Michael inferred in his last comment. FYI @Michael, the Grand Theatre, Łódź is non-independent because the subject works there. It's a pretty straight forward non-independent source. We wouldn't allow an employer's website to be used on an article on its employee for notability purposes in any other subject area. The fine arts is no exception. An encyclopedia on the other hand is clearly independent.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A withdrawal is only possible when there are no delete votes per WDAFD. Piotr voted weak delete, so a close under withdrawal is not possible.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 11 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 Swell (ocean). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kallakkadal

[edit]
Kallakkadal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a distinct phenomenon, but rather a local name for swell surge used in coastal Kerala, also known by various names in other parts of the world. Presenting it as a distinct phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. Additionally, this is not the Malayalam Wikipedia. Per WP:CFORK, this is an unnecessary content fork. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: The article primarily focuses on the swell phenomenon specific to the South Indian coastal region and its local name, "Kallakadal," within the broader context of swells. This is the main distinction highlighted in the article. I recommend merging this content with the Swell (ocean) and adding a brief section under a new headline to address this regional phenomenon (if required).--— MimsMENTOR talk 15:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it’s basically a WP:FORK, but I won’t oppose a smerge. Bearian (talk) 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janakpur Bolts

[edit]
Janakpur Bolts (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 non notable NPL team. As per the other NPL teams, does not meet WP:GNG and should never have been created in the first place. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan, Indiana

[edit]
Buchanan, 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)

Here we have a case where it was the GNIS compilers were a bit too trusting, for the source is not the topos, but is instead an 1876 map with (presumably) a dot on it. No topo shows anything here until it gets back-added from GNIS, and the cited source fails verification: the page in question is about the founding of the city of Louisville and doesn't mention this place. I searched the rest of the book but all mentions were of people except one for a street where a church was located. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Varga

[edit]
Iván Varga (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 claim to notability, playing a total of 620 minutes in Argentina's league, is weak. The only possible WP:SIRS material I found is ESPN Argentina which tells that he debuted for Arsenal de Sarandí in 2015. Corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia is an unsourced dumping ground. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 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 Guinness World Records. Sandstein 12:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of discontinued Guinness World Records

[edit]
List of discontinued Guinness World 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)

Starting AfD page after objection to deletion Dingers5Days (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article meets WP:NLIST. There are reliable sources mentioning a specific discontinued record, but not as a list. I have only found articles from Mental Floss [33], Grunge [34], and Cracked [35]. Cracked has been considered generally unreliable, and the other 2 are not listed on WP:RSP. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the other two are not listed at RSP doesn't mean they are unreliable. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Mental Floss and maybe Grunge are just on the respectable end of tabloid news, but maybe combined with Guinness themselves discussing the topic[36], it's a significant concept?
I would note that lots of articles about individual stories would seemingly have an opportunity to mention the idea that Guinness often discontinues records, but they don't, at least not directly: [37][38][39] Wizmut (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge There are far less notable articles out there. If the consensus will say that it should be deleted, I believe that the contents should be moved to the entry of Guiness World Records. --Misiek1997 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think they're definitely notable enough, it's just that the sources are a bit weak. Micahtchi (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. – The Grid (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is pertinent into Guiness World Records might be the best choice, though some of the entries on this page, such as the "human mole", or "fastest yodel", reads more like trivia than pertinent encyclopedic facts related to Guiness. TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge - I'm not convinced by OTHERSTUFF arguments, and I'm not convinced on notability either, but it does seem possible to source this in a verifiable way so it can still be put (where applicable) in to Guiness World Records. I also note we don't have a list of Guiness world records, which seems like something that could be created in future which would hold this information. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 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 redirect‎ to Fairfax Media. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive.com.au

[edit]
Drive.com.au (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)

Suggesting a redirect to Fairfax Media § 2014 to 2018, with potentially some content merged to that section. I cannot find anything else useful, and keeping in mind that The Sydney Morning Herald is not independent of Fairfax, I find it unlikely this would benefit from a standalone page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 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 redirect‎ to Peter Hendy#Network Rail. Consensus is he's not notable (yet), and redirection is an appropriate WP:ATD. Sandstein 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Dennis

[edit]
Gareth Dennis (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 came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit (blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [40] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [41]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. EEng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) EEng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject doesn't strike me as the type to hide his light under a bushel. EEng 04:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit I'm requesting this because I want to catch the most developed version of this article if it dissappears, given that its currently covered in the news it seems likely it will change in the next days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whoever closes the discussion can make that call; I guess it could be draftified/userfied and then a redirect put in its current title place if that's the decision. Girth Summit (blether) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Cummings, when the time comes, make a request at WP:REFUND for the text to be emailed . EEng 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that waiting for a deletion decision is best. A copy/paste drafting would lack the version history, which might hold information that's useful in the future. A page move isn't appropriate during the AfD discussion. But that's essentially the best outcome for @John Cummings. I just !voted delete, but this is a sincere comment. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 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. ✗plicit 12:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response

[edit]
Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response (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 about a county-level government agency lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Egypt football rivalry

[edit]
Algeria–Egypt football rivalry (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)

Someone has a penchant for creating rivalries left and right. This is one of the rivalries that seems to lack real substance, violating WP:OR. Many other made-up international team rivalries have been deleted in the past, including England–Croatia, Argentina–Germany, Thailand–Vietnam, Brazil–Sweden and indeed Algeria–Nigeria (and many more). Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 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 no consensus‎. Sandstein 12:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur H. Marshall

[edit]
Arthur H. Marshall (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)

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/
https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ
https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/
I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON
Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 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! 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:17, 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 no consensus‎. No clear consensus to delete or for other ATDs after over 3 weeks of discussions. (non-admin closure) Benison (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

[edit]
Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though I have trouble seeing how consensus will be reached if people don't include more policy-based reasoning, particularly regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 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 no consensus‎. No clear cut consensus for delete or other ATDs. (non-admin closure) Benison (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

[edit]
Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) (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)

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC
Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Salihu

[edit]
Mustapha Salihu (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 subject fails WP:NPOL and after [5 attempts at AFC], the article finds it's way to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:04, 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 delete‎. It's snowing. Star Mississippi 02:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvepalli Sisters

[edit]
Sarvepalli Sisters (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 singers. Fails WP:GNG. BBQboffingrill me 07:03, 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 redirect‎ to Kempegowda 2. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamadheera (2024 film)

[edit]
Yamadheera (2024 film) (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)

Redirect to Kempegowda 2 removed several times by user. This is the only article created by that user.

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Dubbed films do not get articles. Dubbed films do not get articles in any circumstances. The icing on the cake is that the last Zee News source upon translating in English says that It was made as a Kannada movie with Shankar as the director. Recently this film is being released in Telugu with the title Yamadhira. The original text was శంకర్ దర్శకుడిగా చేస్తూ కన్నడ సినిమాగా తెరకెక్కించారు. తాజాగా ఈ చిత్రాన్ని తెలుగులో యమధీర టైటిల్‌తో విడుదల చేస్తున్నారు.

The 5th source (TFPC) despite being potentially unreliable also confirms the same. Yamadheera is a Kannada film made by Vedala Srinivas as producer and Shankar as director. Our Telugu actors Nagababu, Madhusudan, Ali and Satya Prakash are acting in this movie.

@Ravensfire:, I already created the discussion, but this user is adamant, do you think it could be a case of WP:COI? DareshMohan (talk) 07:24, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Olaolu Kevin

[edit]
Solomon Olaolu Kevin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:45, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Taylor

[edit]
Angel Taylor (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:NMG. Singer has no music chart entries, certified units, major award wins, etc. The promotional content tag has been on the page since 2010 and there aren't any reliable sources for this singer to verify anything written in this article. Frankly, it would be better to repurpose this page for the other singer named Angel Taylor from Trin-i-tee 5:7. The other Angel Taylor (from Trin-i-tee 5:7) has music chart entries and award wins. Sackkid (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. You are arguing that she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and I am arguing that she meets the minimum notability of WP:GNG. Two different things. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be redundant because this is article about a musical artist. For the page to be on Wikipedia, it would need to meet the guidelines of WP:NMG. Furthermore, it only meets WP:GNG simply for the AllMusic source which only has a very brief paragraph on her. It basically just states that she negotiated a record deal with Aware/Columbia Records and released an album in 2009. But the article doesn't mention anything after that event, probably because the artist is not notable for them. And as she has not done anything notable by Wikipedia standards, there is no point in this page being here. Sackkid (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic is cited in the article. The other sources I mentioned are not cited yet, but they could be, and they show that the subject was notable in 2012. Notability doesn't fade with time. The 2012 sources stand on their own. And finally, an article about a musician is not required to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Any article at all can pass WP:GNG and stay on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the good (not ideal) sources, e.g. Allmusic, etc. --美しい歌 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article fails the Google search and Google news search test and conflicts search results with the more popular Trin-i-tee 5:7 gospel singer of the same name. Keeping this articles borders WP:Clearly notable simply for the AllMusic because it is not clear if DigitalSpy is a reliable source. Furthermore, assuming if it were a reliable source, it focused solely on the fact that she participated in The Voice; a contest that she did not come close to winning, respectively. The AllMusic link only has a very brief summary on that simply states that she had a record deal and release a album in 2009 which did not chart. The AllMusic link isn't enough to verify what is written in the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia seems to consist of original research. Sackkid (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meramec Valley Christian School

[edit]
Meramec Valley Christian School (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 WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any coverage that would indicate that this organization meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Kids Africa Foundation

[edit]
Kings Kids Africa Foundation (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. Lots of blogs and mentions but nothing significant in reliable sources that would meet the WP:ORGCRIT standard. CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 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 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 03:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vakha Keligov

[edit]
Vakha Keligov (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 (WP:NBASIC). Closest I could get to finding sources that establish notability for this football player are databases and statistics, which do not constitute in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. Nothing much outside of that in Russian either. ~ Tails Wx 03:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Furey

[edit]
Anthony Furey (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 political candidate and journalist. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's a non-notable failed political candidate. Unless he sets a record for most loses, he isn't notable. He is a fringe journalist, not considered mainstream. Abebenjoe (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the above should be counted as Delete. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's not that fringe. https://torontosun.com/author/afureypost/ 56 articles in one of the country's largest dailies is a pretty substantial soapbox. Erdunbar (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:POLITICIAN who only garnered 4.96% of the vote when he ran for mayor. His career as journalist and political commentator doesn't seem to have been notable. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He garnered a third of the vote in the 2024 ward by-election and was the second place candidate after the winner who got 55%. Other candidates in that by-election dropped out to prevent a vote split that could have risked him coming out on top. That alone makes him notable.
    His views should be documented in a reputable (i.e. Wikipedia) place which has a history of editorial rigor.
    The fact that so many different people have commented suggests to me that this is an article worth keeping and expanding on. If he goes away, sure, delete it. But if he keeps running for office it's important to have a record of his views. Erdunbar (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming second in a municipal by-election is not grounds for notability. "Losing candidates in municipal elections are not considered presumptively notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated" (Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES) I cannot see secondary (and independent!) national or international press coverage about him - for example, looking on google news between 2016 and 2021 (prior to his mayoral run), the only relevant articles are ones that are written by him! Turini2 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Canadian media landscape but the relevant articles written by him are in the Toronto Sun. It's not a fringe newspaper nor is he a fringe journalist--he's got 56 recent opinion pieces and/or articles.
    The Toronto Star has also devoted quite a bit of ink to Furey. The Toronto Star is Canada's largest newspaper! If that doesn't qualify as coverage I don't know what does!
    For basic journalism Toronto Sun reporters often do a better job than the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post.
    When it comes to particular events that I have inside knowledge of I have (sadly) regularly been frustrated and amazed by how wrong or even disingenuous the Toronto Star and G&M can be when the Toronto Sun is actually engaged in factual reporting that avoids hyperbole.
    For its opinion pieces... That's a TOTALLY different story, but it doesn't change the fact that the Toronto Sun is not a fringe newspaper.
    Furry has a soap box that allows him to have regional notoriety and 56 (recent) opinion pieces. I actually remember reading at least three of his pieces in the past year even if I didn't know who wrote them ... and I don't normally read the Toronto Sun.
    I guarantee you Wikipedia has uncontested articles devoted to far less noteworthy individuals. And there are "successful" politicians who have far far lower profiles in regional or national newspapers than Furey.
    There's a reason that he managed to get the Conservative/PC apparatus behind him in the by-election--he got noticed during the mayoral election. Without that party apparatus behind him he wouldn't have been able to capture a third of the vote. Erdunbar (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot consider articles written by him, that's the point I am making. Toronto Sun columns written by Furey are not independent, secondary sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Independent sources for more information on this. (We are also not discussing the quality of the Canadian media landscape here) Turini2 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I agree that it's not a particularly good article and needs to be expanded. But, I am firmly convinced that he is someone who needs the scrutiny of a Wikipedia entry... Unless he gets eliminated as a viable candidate in the next mayoral election. Erdunbar (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think his notability goes beyond his political candidacies, due to his controversial view points. He's gotten a lot of attention, and as a result there are quite a few reliable sources to draw from.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The level of interest suggests it's worth keeping. Erdunbar (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway.
    So the only basis on which he might qualify for inclusion is as a journalist, not as a political candidate, but this article is not establishing that he would have any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists. Even the stuff about his controversial views hasn't been a big subject of reliable source coverage in its own right, as I'm not finding a whole lot of coverage and analysis about his journalistic career: even on a Google search I'm just seeing mentions of his journalistic work as background in the campaign coverage, and glancing namechecks of his existence as a person with opinions in coverage of events he had opinions about, neither of which are support for notability as a journalist. But I'm not finding hits where "Anthony Furey says controversial thing" is the subject of any significant coverage in its own right, which is the kind of sourcing we would actually need to see to support notability on that basis.
    Also, note that this article usurped an already-existing redirect to Aussie rules footballer Tony Furey, which is not proper Wikipedia process — even if there were a strong basis for an article about Anthony Furey as a journalist, it would have to be created at a disambiguated title, not as a hijacking of a redirect that was already in place to represent somebody else, and then we could have a renaming discussion about whether he was sufficiently notable to take over WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name or not. But we should delete this first, and then restore the redirect to Tony Furey afterward, rather than leaving this inside the redirect's edit history. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Previously discussed at 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election, where his performance was not considered notable enough for an article to be created. I do not consider that he is a) notable under WP:NPOL (he hasn't won two elections, winning under 5% of the vote (just about finishing 4th) at the 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election) b) notable under WP:JOURNALIST (he is a newspaper columnist) Turini2 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven different people offered up their opinion on the article deletion. That level of interest suggests to me that he is noteworthy enough to have his public pronouncements documented so people can accept or reject his brand of politics, without having it filtered by campaign materials. Erdunbar (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you see editors agreeing that an article should be deleted as evidence that it is noteworthy enough to be retained? That's a self-serving logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. The standard for notability is determined not by the number of editors who comment in the AFD but by Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline as per WP:GNG ie significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:21, 9 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 Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea which everyone including creator is on board with. Star Mississippi 02:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 North Korean Trash Balloon Incident

[edit]
2024 North Korean Trash Balloon Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article for the same topic was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean excrement balloon incident. I don't think this current new article adds much more to the discussion than what is already on Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. The current article title also isn't great; should be sentence case as it isn't a proper noun, and this isn't a single incident: it is a series of incidents. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 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.