Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 05	November 07 >

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 merge‎ to Alberni Pacific Railway#Rolling stock. ✗plicit 00:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberni Pacific 2

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

Does not meet GNG, existing sources are unreliable (self-published / blogs) except for CHEK, which is not significant coverage. I was unable to find any significant coverage from a basic BEFORE search. Could be redirected or selectively merged to Alberni Pacific Railway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Along with the CHEK article, one can find many photos of this train on various train enthusiast websites along with short mentions in a couple news articles and in books. These can't really be considered significant coverage but do speak to the fact that the train is not entirely unknown. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alberni Pacific Railway#Rolling stock. It does not appear to have stand-alone notability, but is clearly notable within the context of rolling stock on that railway and the target article is not so large that a merge would be inappropriate on size grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Thryduulf- Merging to rolling stock is the wise choice- I suppose we leave the old page as a redirect to the rolling stock page ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alberni Pacific Railway#Rolling stock per WP:ATD. I was unable to locate significant coverage but agree that the content could be used to expand the APR article in an appropriate fashion.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and redirect to Alberni Pacific Railway#Rolling stock as valid ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates Corner, Indiana

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

Another short-lived rural post office elevated to a settlement. There's nothing there and I find no mentions of it. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Delaware County, Indiana. The unincorporated town was already merged into the county. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the discussion is that it apparently isn't and wasn't a town at all, so I don't see the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable locale.TH1980 (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HK Alfa

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant coverage anywhere with the exception of database websites. Also, the club existed only for 4 years. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage and GNG is not met in any case. --Tone 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Team played in the top-level Slovenian league, which receives significant coverage in the national media. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? Provide that "significant coverage" that covers HK Alfa then, and as you have been told at some other AfDs, playing in a league does NOT guarantee notability anymore since the notability system was overhauled in 2022, they simply need to pass WP:GNG regardless of which league they play in. If the league receives "significant coverage", it would only make the league notable, and not all of its clubs, especially not some random amateur clubs that only existed for 4 seasons. And there is no second division anyway, so "top-level" doesn't mean much, they didn't need to climb to this division, Slovenian ice hockey only has like 6 teams, of which only 2-3 are professional while other are "hobby clubs", including Alfa. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not even 100 Google Search results. Not significant. Never won the league. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tone, Snowflake91, Starship.paint and per nominator, not at all enough coverage. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I searched a few Slovenian newspaper archives and was unable to locate any significant coverage. I did find a few articles where the organization was mentioned in passing; most of which were about the financial problems facing sports clubs as a whole in Slovenia. I found zero media coverage of their actual sporting events, although it’s possible I may have missed something. This appears to be a minor sporting team that isn’t notable.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Cawthorn (artist)

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

Unreliably sourced article. A WP:BEFORE search offers little in the way of further sourcing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Comics and animation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because it was linked to a dozen pages already, had an article in another language, and is the author of The Crystal and the Amulet, which has had an article on the English Wikipedia for years. I also linked to external databases, most of which have longer articles about him than this current stub --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: There's a review of a book written about him [1], suggesting notability. This [2] was published on paper at one point but is now online; Cawthorn has an entry there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a couple of citations and am fairly sure that SF Encyclopedia (the online version of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) can be considered reliable. I hope someone who knows more about science fiction and illustration can add a few more citations or edit. Is there a deletion sorting category for science fiction? The book mentioned above was written by his sister and published by a very small press. I am unsure if it adds to notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, The book seems that it could suggest notability as per Oaktree b, and I generally agree with WomanArtistUpdates. As per Harmonia Amanda, It makes sense if the article is in another language for it to be in english as well (my thought however) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. The author’s inclusion in a specialized encyclopedia alone make him encyclopedic under WP:5P1. Additionally, being the subject of a published biography reviewed in a journal also indicates notability. I suggest the nominator withdraw per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kotter

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

Unless someone can show how this would meet WP:NPROF, subject is not notable under any other guideline. Putting aside COI and UPE, the sources simply do not go into depth about the subject. Just passing mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, Austria, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sourcing I can find is actually about the Meatable company, not about Kotter. Being quoted in some articles about your company doesn't transfer notability to the person, and I don't see any evidence this meets WP:NPROF. - MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with CNMall41 and MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. Not my area, and I know neuroscience is heavily cited, but according to GS Kotter has two co-authored articles with >1000 citations (one is a review), and a further 18 with >100 citations, which seems to merit consideration under PROF. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to a formal keep per Ldm1954's comments below. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in-depth because the sources just pass a claim. COI, not at all notable. Agreeing with Axad12, MrOllie, CNMall41. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extending based on review - more time may be of benefit here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With an h-factor of 48 he just about passes NPROF#C1. Note that for NPROF we don't require extensive external coverage. If he had significant awards it would be a strong keep; at the moment he squeezes by. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

h-factor can be an indicator, but not proof of notability. We need to show "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." I don't see that here unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, it is very rare to find reviews of the work of scientists except when they receive major awards, in Feitschrifts or obituaries; hence that criteria is rarely used in the AfD discussions I have seen. He has two > 1K cited papers in high quality journals (Nature Reviews, Brain). As I said, I would be happier if there were awards to back up the case but I will argue that he just makes #C1. Please also look at his citation history which has had a rapid growth in 2022-2023 which looks to be continuing in 2024. That does strengthen the case slightly. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and I respect your points. I understand it may be rare but if they don't exists then they don't exist. The coverage in reliable sources is what we need. If the citations pick up in the future, maybe he will meet the threshhold but I think we are even lower than low hanging fruit to say he meet #C1 based on two papers with 1K+ cites. Maybe a redirect to Meatable would be appropriate until such time as he meets the threshold. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Let me be more definitive; coverage such as reviews of their work is not a viable criteria in almost all of science. There are many scientists without them who already have WP pages. If people cite the work, and it is in a high impact journal that is a strong indicator. Note that this is not HEP where citations are massive.

If you believe 1K is not a significant number of citations I really think you should post a question at WT:NPROF to get more opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, I just looked under one of his GS areas remyelination. The highest cited person has 3 articles with > 1K cites, the 2nd has 1, 3rd 0, 4th 2 and he is fifth. I see no indications this is a very high cites field (e.g. HEP), it is comparable to physics, albeit much higher than math and most arts. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the disagreement which is why we are discussing. I never said it was not a significant number of citations. I said that #C1 would not be satisfied with two papers of 1K+ citations. If it was, we would have a ton of pages for people who would otherwise not be notable. I agree that a significant number of citations is an indicator of notability, which is why I said "h-factor can be an indicator;" but, it is just that...an indicator. There would need to be an agreement that the amount of cites he has is significant enough to pass the #C1 criteria and I don't think we do. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we agree that the subject passes WP:PROF (and I'm not claiming that we do) then GNG arguments are moot. And unless I'm mistaken, outside a few hot-button topics, research papers with >1000 citations are still very rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are close. I don't believe this would meet GNG so the only thing I think we differ on at the moment is if his citations would meet the threshold of #C1. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting other editors with experience in that space to chime in. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was what I hoped for when I first commented. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see an open discussion from September but it doesn't look like there is headway one direction or the other. Personally, I hate WP:PROF standards as everything is subjective in cases like this.

Interpretation of whether GNG is met is also surprisingly subjective. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but we have guidance based on discussion and consensus what governs things such significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent coverage. That makes GNG fairly easy at times and subjective in fewer cases than not. Whereas, we don't have guidance (at least none I can find) that helps with PROF, hence the reason for the discussion I guess. Even the September discussion doesn't see to have clarity unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, clear consensus usually arises from PROF-based discussions in AfD, while I have seen endless debates over precisely what constitutes adequate coverage under GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your contention. We will have to disagree on that as well. Different lens I guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROF#C1 is tricky as you will see from the often (very) extended discussions at WT:NPROF. There are a range of methods for h-factors/citations, but they all boil down to a check of:

Journal reliability, impact factor, notability, e.g. "Nature" versus pay "Pay to play" (predator).
Some disciple scaler. For instance as a crude metric for 3 topics I would equate h-factors as mathematics:15 ~ condensed matter physics:30 ~ High-energy physics:75
The base number. My minimum requirement (45-50) for physics/materials science is quite high, I have see others claim that 30 is notable.
A comparison to others in the field. This matters.
Place in article, e.g. first (did the work), last (managed everything), other (never obvious) and the number of co-authors.
High single paper cites, which indicates that the community considers the work important.
Experience. I changed my scaling for what is notable in mathematics following several AfD discussions and WT:NPROF.

N.B., I steer clear of academics in the arts as I don't know how to judge them unless it is a no-brainer (e.g. FRS, MacArthur). Ldm1954 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the WP:NPROF guidelines, they are different from GNG and are what matters here. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get more commentary on whether NPROF 1a is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I know this is easily gamed by careful choice of keywords, but rather than looking at his Google Scholar citation profile directly I thought to look at his ranking in the keywords he lists as his research interests. In three of the four, including Remyelination, there are multiple other authors with comparable citation counts and yet he is in the top five. I think that should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF guidelines. Scopus profile does confirm high level of citations. ResonantDis_tortion 10:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPROF is the relevant guideline here. I tend to discount papers on which the subject is middle author from a long author list (in a field where order matters), but I see several highly cited papers where he is first or last. I think it is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:09, 10 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) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Graphique Internationale

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

Article based on primary sources and fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Organizations. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There’s an entire scholarly book about the organization AGI: Graphic Design Since 1950 (2007, W. W. Norton & Company) by Elly Bos that’s held in numerous university libraries such as https://primo.rowan.edu/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=01ROWU_INST:ROWAN&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&tab=Everything&docid=alma995254273405201&lang=en&context=L Seems like a notable international professional non-profit organization.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source. Do you have WP:THREE? LibStar (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found SIGCOV to substantiate WP:ORGCRIT at Art and Industry - Volumes 58-59 (1955) p. 2, Gebrauchsgraphik - Volume 36 (1965) p. 62, Domus: architecttura, arredamento, arte - Issues 669-672 (1986) p. 27. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 23:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election

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

There should be a high bar when it comes to spinning off a full article about election reactions. Category:International reactions to elections is mainly populated by countries taking positions on disputed elections such as those in Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Iran, plus sui generis events such as the Brexit and Catalan independence referendums. I can't see how that's the case here. Johnson became the new Conservative leader. Other party leaders opposed that. He became the new prime minister. British allies supported that. This event is so mundane it could be covered in summary style in 2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election#Domestic_and_international_reaction, which it already is. Interestingly, the section in that article doesn't start with a hatnote link to this page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom; most of this comes under WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia has an odd obsession with cataloguing trivial “reactions” that tertiary sources pay absolutely no attention to. Bondegezou (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons. Summary within the election article seems far more appropriate. CipherRephic (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that reaction articles should be for events of major significance or controversy, not the election of a leader of a political party, particularly given the reactions consist almost entirely of various international leaders expressing their congratulations sourced to Twitter/X. AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, event has not shown to be unique to warrant a separate reactions article. Reactions are WP:ROUTINE, fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator put up a very reasonable argument, and I am also arguing towards their direction. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal affairs of the Tate brothers

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

A BLP minefield and unnecessary fork of Andrew Tate. VQuakr (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not seeing the BLP issues... OP is going to have to be more specific. Its necessary because of the size of Andrew Tate and the extensive in-depth coverage of the joint legal affairs of the Tate brothers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At 6,000 words readable prose, length at the Tate article is not a concern per WP:SIZERULE. The level of relative weight to give this aspect of the subject is much easier to gauge in the biographical article, which also is better-watched. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm estimating a mature page size based on current coverage of 3,000 words of readable prose for Legal affairs of the Tate brothers, all together that would put Andrew Tate well over. The coverage is of the Tate brothers, not Andrew Tate alone. I don't know how saying that a legacy article is better watched than a just created article is relevant in a deletion discussion. You also seem to have abandoned your BLP claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 8,000 words the article would also be fine per size rule, above that it may need to be split and would benefit from discussion and consensus rather than bold splits of contentious topics, so there's still plenty of room. CNC (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combined its going to be over 8,000. That also doesn't take away from the fact that its a separate topic even if size isn't an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I needn't repeat myself in every reply for a reasoning to remain valid so hush with the "abandoned" nonsense. Is there consensus for that expansion of this aspect of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia? Normal process was circumvented in this case. Typically we would expand the root article, get consensus that those expansions were warranted, then discuss if a split was warranted if size concerned were approached. The outcome of that discussion could be condensation of coverage, for example, or a split. VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasoning given vis-a-vis BLP at all. This topic seems due for a stand alone article based on the large quantity of coverage it has gotten which does not entirely overlap with Andrew Tate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CFORK. Andrew Tate article was previously 6,000 words,[3] so no justification for trimming or splitting, such as splitting off criminal investigations and then trimming the main article as has been done here to create this article.[4] I also think WP:TOOSOON applies here, don't really see BLP:CRIME being an issue as the content was from Andrew's page. CNC (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I split off both criminal and civil issues. I have also added content which was never on Andrew's page so there may be unique BLP issues I just see them (kind of obviously if I made the content). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am willing to rescind my !vote for the benefit of consensus if it comes down to it (closer can strike my vote*). My initial issue was that at present it's a no-consensus fork with very little difference to where it's been forked from. I'm all in favour of splitting articles that need it due to article size, however at 6,000 words I don't believe it's an improvement splitting off 1/3 of Tate's article (in fact, the opposite is true). Specifically when the 1/3 we are talking about is where 50% of his notability lies, as well as arguably most of the controversy surrounding this topic. I understand you intend to expand the article, but articles shouldn't be split due to planned expansion, but because articles have been expanded already and have become too big. If there is consensus to keep, then Andrew Tate article should have the section in question summarised to the same as the lead of the this article (that is, an opening paragraph with the third paragraph of Tate lead). Per summary style, this isn't a case of just trimming. Ideally the section at Tate would just be expanded until split is required, which may result in a specific trial being split as opposed to all his legal affairs (hence too soon). *The only reason not to remove my !vote yet is if there are more editors wanting to delete, as this would be the better result I believe. All the best. CNC (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are court cases which are Andrew Tate alone which would remain covered just on that page so it would be more extensive than that. There are other elements of the Andrew Tate page which need expansion that I hoped this split would help make room for, I've already started on that with things that weren't covered at all like his meme coin. The Hustler's University/The Real World section also seems due for expansion, but thats not really a topic for here just giving some more context on why I split it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Keep after summarising child article to parent and lack of dispute so far. [5] There is in hindsight a benefit to having a briefly summarised section at Tate's article that gives similar due weight to the subject as other sections. There was also a lot of unnecessary detail that isn't necessary on Tate's page and is better suited here. CNC (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Romania, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable spin-off article that is both broader and more specific than Andrew Tate given that it is about two people and focuses only on the legal aspect. I'm also not seeing any BLP issues. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The size of the Andrew Tate article isn't germane here, since this is about both Tate brothers, who are themselves notable enough for a stand-alone article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Topic has a clearly defined scope, and has received international press coverage. I don’t agree that this is a WP:CFORK of the Andrew Tate article as this topic involves two living people. Seems like a reasonable spin off with sufficient supporting coverage in reliable secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ho (footballer, born 1998)

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

Deleted before. Very weak claim to notability with 5 games/169 minutes in Japan's third league, no significant and independent sources (including ja:wiki), fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know this user, but the deletion notices on their page suggest they had a habit of creating pages as soon as a player crossed the white line into Japanese third division football, even if that turned out to be the only time in their career. Some users were prolific under the old WP:NFOOTY guideline in creating perma-stubs like this with just a link to a database, as if notability were to be WP:INHERITED from a (still minor) league or club. Simply put, right now, any page on Wikipedia should WP:GNG or just GO. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails even WP:FOOTYN (third league) and does not meet WP:GNG.Marcocanol (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT to prevent recreation a third time. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. (non-admin closure) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

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

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election was to delete, with the nominator's rationale citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since the content of this page is, again, pretty much just routine congratulations, the same arguments brought forward in 2020 still apply here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is still important news, But Stuff like the Assassination attempt were merged into the main article. New antares (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RECENTISM at its worst. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article appears to be nothing more than a list of congratulations, standard as any other election victory. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These boilerplate congratulations from world leaders who know they will need to deal with Trump as of January 20 are beyond WP:ROTM and unencyclopedic. Lmk if a world leader (in office) condemns Trump today, that would be out of the ordinary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a page for the International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, so the precedent for notable elections having international reaction pages exists. GigaDerp (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the difference is that the Venezuelan presidential election was highly controversial, with multiple countries explicitly criticizing it. Still, one way or another, this is still WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially since there hasn't been a discussion on the suitability of that page to establish precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuelan election is notable because of concerns about how the election itself was conducted. Most of the reactions to it were based on that. This election really isn't that notable on its own. Several notable things happened during the campaign and Trump's nonconsecutive election is important, but the outcome isn't all to significant I think. Qqars (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see above that International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election is brought up as a "what about that?" above, but that was a disputed election in which different foreign governments decided whether or not to accept the result. That is obviously different to this. However, why hasn't anyone brought up the more glaringly obvious parallel - International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election? There is no difference between these two articles - the same guy won (you can argue which one was more of a shock) - and there was no full-on war between Ukraine and Russia in 2016 for the office of president to affect, nor were Israel and Palestine at full-on war. Surely both must be nominated as the same argument applies. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate the 2016 article if you want to. I found the current article while patrolling new pages, which is why I nominated this one specifically for deletion so the community could discuss its suitability. As far as I know, unlike for the 2020 article, there hasn't been any discussion yet about the 2016 one. Still, I believe it should be nominated separately rather than in a bundled nomination, as the 2016 article is much longer-standing and has more depth to its content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this, and instead of outright having this and the 2016 page be deleted, couldn't they be merged into some grand International reactions to United States presidential elections or equivalent page? Since some elections have less notable reactions (like 2020), it seems like WP:PAGEDECIDE might apply and the pages would serve better as a group than a mess of tiny pages. GigaDerp (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would seems like a reasonable way to go. McYeee (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this entire article was created because @User:Jfhutson made the right call and removed the international section on the main page for this election. Instead of proponents discussing this, and without 1RR vio, this article has been created. Article is clearly a symptom of WP:TDS.
Delete it. Barnt Toust 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not WP:TDS; there's a page for the exact same situation in 2016. SwensonJ (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Barnt Toust 15:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is a rebuttal to the claim that WP:TDS applies, not an argument for inclusion per se. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not preclude that rebuttal. McYeee (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The international response to the 2020 election in Belarus differ markedly, with some countries accepting the result and others outright rejecting, whereas reactions to the 2024 US presidential election were mostly just congratulations messages and there is not much coverage of this election after that. Haruka Amaranth 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neutral at one point and it is nothing noteworthy compared to the post-election parts in the 2020 Singaporean general election and 2023 Singaporean presidential election where it was one paged only (though there is a pre-election page for the former), unless it was more notable like the 2016 one. Sculture65 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep: I am aware there were some unique responses but I'm aware while noteworthiness is into question I feel it could be better if it can be simplified to just similar to what Sculture65 mentioned. I know most of them are congratulatory messages but some may have important elements that may affect potential foreign relationships. I feel it needs more evaluation as well as we look and see. 20chances (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: as previously mentioned, there is an International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election page, which while longer in content differs little in substance in that it is mostly congratulatory messages from heads of state and government. SwensonJ (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any recentism here is best fixed by similar articles in older elections. This is effectively a list article and the Google News search linked in the find sources template above surfaces plenty of reliable sources of the type required by WP:NLIST. Reuters Al Jazeera CBS McYeee (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This case of WP:RECENTISM can be fixed by similar articles in older elections. Like McYeee said, this is effectly a lite article and the Google News search has sources that pass the WP:NLIST. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 07:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here has been covered in anything that isn't routine coverage. The coverage in 2016 seemed to be a little different, especially with the popular vote/electoral college difference. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The information is critical and it should be preserved either in either this article or the main presidential election article. Xoocit (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find it surprising that an article like this could be created. If such articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia, it raises the question: should we create articles for every election and every congratulatory message from various countries? Elections happen annually around the world, and people extend congratulations regularly; I don’t think it’s appropriate to create articles for all of them. Baqi:) (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we shouldn't have articles for every "congratulatory message"; we can fit all the messages related to a given election in a single Article. The standard I would propose is that a separate article on reactions should be kept if merging is contraindicated by WP:TOOBIG and the reactions get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I think my proposal is at least as strict as the normal policy for inclusion. McYeee (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Routine congratulations between counterparts should not be repeated in their details, however, there will be some "wired" instances, for example Kremlin's refusal to congratulate, as well as (maybe) MFA China's wired announcements before Xi officially congratulates Trump. Those instances are - for a regular country with normal elections - in limited number and should be able to organized in the respective main article. --BoyuZhang1998 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: This is pretty much just congratulations. I don't believe this deserves its own page. I think it either should either be merged with 2024 United States presidential election or deleted as it's quite unremarkable, routine coverage. MarchRain ♡ ^{「weather station」} 11:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Relevant to track different reactions or the lack of it. --KajenCAT (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge It is not relevent enough to have its own page but i also believe it could be merged into the main article to list the international leaders who congratulated trump and the international communities reaction to his victory Paytonisboss (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions, agreeing the other comments in favor of merging the article.--Narsilien (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. A separate article such as this is completely unnecessary. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly oppose merging this. These leaders congratulate ever winner of a US presidential election. It offers no significant information about the election. --JFHutson (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. As others said, this separate article isn't necessary and can be added onto that subsection of the 2024 US presidential election page. Rager7 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge per target being WP:TOOBIG at 12,000 words already. The article content is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE, but if it has to exist then at least leave it here instead of moving it (back) to an already overloaded page. CNC (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It is quite common for foreign leaders or representatives to congratulate the winning candidate of an election. Fails WP:ROUTINE. If some of the reactions are especially notable or receive significant coverage, they can be added back to the main page. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic value, WP:ROUTINE congratulatory remarks. No point in merging what should be deleted outright. Keep arguments mentioning other reactions pages are merely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's bad enough when we have these reaction sections in articles, we don't need separate articles for them. This is an encyclopedia. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really only the sentence saying "Most congratulated him" and another explaining why (i.e. mostly, he is the new president of the US so they are being polite out of practicality) is needed, both of which can go in a subsection of the main. Also, run-of-the-mill (WP:ROTM) as said above. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that the information in the article is crucial; even the majority of the sources are from either the country's ministry of foreign affairs or official news broadcasting agencies so at least they are reliable. Underdwarf58 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is article for International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election. And generally, there are many such articles about international reactions to important events. Rutdam (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete citing WP:ROUTINE. Augmented Seventh (talk)

Delete or Merge to 2024 United States presidential election. Seems like an unnecessary WP:CFORK of the 2024 United States presidential election article. International reactions can be succinctly covered in that article.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Special Gigs

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

Notability, only seems to cover one month in 2013 Engrigg22 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, Russia, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG. No obvious inclusion criteria also. Ajf773 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing these three shows have in common is that they took place in the same month, but that is not a tour that could qualify for an article per WP:NTOUR, and there is not even any possible title to use for an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded, unnecessary. Lamona (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mainly per Doomsdayer520 above Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge before deleting if possible to Anzhi Arena and NYC Pride. The events themselves all have SIGCOV, but are not related and don't belong together. All three of these events received secondary media coverage still easily found in a quick google news search. One of them is already covered at The Voice (American TV series) season 4. Cher actually performed for the inaugural opening of the Anzhi Arena which is one of the set lists given in the article, and that article briefly covers this but in less detail. Here is one media article covering that concert. (There's a lot of coverage of Cher's visit to Russia in 2013 if one searches in Russian). Given that was the opening event of that venue, it wouldn't be undue weight to include some of the content at that article. The other is 2013 NYC PRIDE appearance covered in national press sources like this https://playbill.com/article/jekyll-hydes-deborah-cox-and-cher-perform-at-nyc-pride-closing-event-dance-on-the-pier-june-30-com-207048, https://nation.time.com/2013/06/30/the-stars-come-out-for-pride-month/photo/nyc-pride-2013-dance-on-the-pier-2/, https://www.out.com/entertainment/popnography/2013/06/18/don’t-call-it-comeback-cher-perform-nyc-pride, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/06/18/cher-to-perform-at-nyc-pride/2434373/ A very brief one sentence mention of her appearance at pride in 2013 wouldn't be out of place in that article. All of this to say, some of the content can be included in other articles. The other option would be to selectively merge to List of Cher concerts and make it a live performances list like List of Beyoncé live performances (there are several such "live performance" lists) @Engrigg22, Doomsdayer520, Ajf773, Lamona, and Vanderwaalforces what do you think?4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Civil War

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a recreation of a topic that was previously deleted, albeit with different content. It arguably violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH, plus it almost certainly goes against WP:FRINGE. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: This article should be kept and expanded to include more historical context. The notion a Second Civil War or a Second Revolution has been around for a long time and has produced a huge amount of speculative fiction. There have also been attempts to start one over the years. Charles Essie (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (as article creator), meets WP:GNG, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply, as the idea of a civil war has been covered by CNN, ABC, and a myriad of mainstream sources. This is a topic that has been talked about for several years, and deleting it for WP:CRYSTAL or WP:FRINGE reasons (the keyword is hypothetical) isn't warranted. This excerpt from WP:FRINGE sums it up: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.", which is the opposite of what's happening here. Also see here, here and here, all of which prove that WP:CRYSTAL probably doesn't apply here. This'll be a pile-on, but this excerpt from WP:CRYSTAL states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." warrants this an exception, as all info is verifiable, and would 100% warrant an article if a true civil war starts, and has received national attention. If WP:SYNTH is the issue, then WP:SOFIXIT. I'll add more to the article soon, I will admit it's pretty short as of now. I'd love to see a rebuttal, and if none can be made then my point is proven.

On second thought, I'd support a keep or merge to Political polarization in the United States. E_F_₅ 14:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I agree with EF5 that the sourcing satisfies WP:GNG, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. Sal2100 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to delete based on subsequent delete arguments which I find persuasive. No objection to a merge, if an appropriate target page can be agreed upon. Sal2100 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is properly sourced and doesn't have NPOV issues or GNG issues. The CRYSTAL argument also falls apart IMO per above comments. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So it gained traction back in June, which was not after the election which was yesterday. Then it goes back to January 6th, last election? Some strange SYNTH going on that just isn't in most of the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been fixed. It's been a stressful day, and I may have messed up a bit with that. Either way, the issue you bought up is no longer relevant. E_F_₅ 23:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"conflict that gained traction and nationwide media attention in the early 2020s. A poll conducted in June of 2024 by Rasmussen Reports showed that of ..." Early 2000s and June 2024 are still in there. This article is SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "anticipated event" that's been anticipated for 24 years now and hasn't happened... That's pretty much a work of fiction at this point. No one in 2001 was saying Trump was gong to get elected to two non-consecutive terms in the next quarter century and cause a riot/war/whatever. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous nom. This is still a massive violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL that currently does not qualify as a coherent article topic. If Trump declares a dictatorship and an actual civil war happens, then we can revisit, but not now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been discussed internationally, is a coherent topic, and is vague but there's enough sources reporting on to make an article out of. Departure– (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic remains too vague to justify stand alone coverage and we already cover everything of signficant here on other pages unless I'm missing something. The sourcing does not tie all of this stuff together, you really have to trie to squish it together. Where I do see perhaps a stand alone topic is those covering the related meme but that would be a different discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a bunch of synthesis and original research. Some1 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere I feel like this is a concept that has been covered by sources, and some participants in the Jan.6 riots were even wearing t-shirts that said "Civil war 2" on them, but I'm not sure it should be a stand-alone article as it isn't a real thing that has actually happened. I feel like we could have content on this concept somewhere though. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an article about political polarization in the United States, which has an existing article. The idea that current polarisation could turn into a "civil war" is entirely speculative. It's also not a new frame - Ron Brownstein wrote The Second Civil War back in 2008. It's a repeated frame that's been applied to what could either be considered different episodes of this, or different points in a continuum. Whatever you want to consider it, this is SYNTH. It's also got CRYSTAL problems, because this event hasn't happened. And as little as I like Trump's win in the election, conventional wisdom would say it's less likely now that it was last week. Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article that was deleted in the previous nom was a lot better than this one. WP:REFUND would be a better venue, because restoring the deleted article is a much better idea. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, which says Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Trying to get around this requirement by citing a handful of inflammatory opinion pieces which say that a civil war is "already here" is plainly insufficient; it also contradicts the article itself, which says that the conflict is "hypothetical". The article is a mess of SYNTH and what little can be salvaged should be merged to political polarization in the United States, political violence and other pages. Astaire (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a future event being discussed since the "early 2000s" per the into. If it hasn't happened by now, it's not an "anticipated event", it's a work of speculative fiction. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially a fan fic imagining a civil war. The opening battle of this hypothetical civil war was four years ago? Esolo5002 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a theoretical event that has not happened, and thus should not be its own page. I'm open to a merge to Political polarization in the United States if the sources are strong enough, but even then I don't think content speculating on a war has a place on Wikipedia. As unlikely as this is, I also am worried that some lunatic may read this page and actually start a real civil war because they read about the hypothetical civil war here. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then again though, there is a wikipedia page for WW3, which is a theoretical event that has not happened. Both are hypothetical wars and thus i think this article should stay 49.196.171.140 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The fact that Category:Second American Civil War speculative fiction has twenty entries says this clearly passes WP:GNG; however, as written this has massive problems as mentioned above. The History section has wanted defenestrating for almost a day and I have put it out of its misery.--Laun chba ller 14:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not generally how GNG works, what sources are you seeing covering this speculative fiction which give significant coverage to the topic at hand here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sourcing over previous deleted versions. If you combine all the sources on the two deleted versions, this one and whatever else like drafts is linked off this page, what does that leave? How would the topic (if not the written article) fare for notability then? The sourcing on the prior two incarnations plus drafts logically must count, right? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I’ve heard talk of a “coming civil war” between races and political movements in the US for over 50 years. A poll showed that some supporters of one candidate said they would take up arms if their candidate didn’t win, and he won. That election loss work-around wasn’t needed. It is not the only possible civil war and seems idle talk. Edison (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt This keeps getting recreated because people take the hyperbole and speculation way too seriously, but Wikipedia is not here to pro,ote your dunoius predicitions. When shots are fired, we can reconsider this, but we need to stop having this article recreated. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a concept its had impact in fiction (books, television, film). See Category:Second American Civil War speculative fiction. It's also entered political discourse and the realm of speculative future predicting in best selling books like the one reviewed here in Slate https://slate.com/culture/2022/01/stephen-marche-next-civil-war-review.html and The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/16/the-next-civil-war-stephen-marche-how-civil-wars-start-barbara-walter-review-nightmare-scenarios-for-the-us Given its appearance in popular culture like Civil War I think an article is possible under WP:SIGCOV if we were to focus on the books, tv shows, and films that engage with this speculative concept.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danil Novikov

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

Fails WP:GNG (WP:NBASIC).--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know the local media profile of Yenisey or the Russian second tier, but presumably it's focused around players whose input was more than four minutes [6] at that level. No argument has been made for WP:GNG notability as an individual. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. But if anyone wants to take up GLL's suggestion in the future, I'm happy to userify this for you to work from. asilvering (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft of Turkey during World War II

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

As Turkey hardly did anything during WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Equipment of X at Y time period" lists are rarely notable, and I don't believe this rises to the standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, so the connection between Turkey, military aircraft, and WWII isn't as out there as you might think. But it's a small paragraph in a "Turkey in World War II article", not an original research-ey This shows how the Turkish Air Force would have been equipped throughout World War II list based off passing mentions in hobbyest websites listing countries that various models of planes were shipped to. The article cites one self-published source [7], which does actually deal with airplanes in Turkey during WWII. Instead, it deals with planes preserved in Turkey during World War II. And it makes it clear that this is not a subject of academic study, because the author thanks the readers for helping him crowd-source the list. It also contains an unattributed copy of part of our Military history of Turkey article, so it appears to technically be a copyright violation too. My WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing promising, but I do have to concede that my search is skewed by results related to the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

I could see an advantage of a "list of Turkish military airplanes" by decade style of list, for more directory-style purposes. if anybody feels like making one, and thinks this article would be useful for that, then the closer/deletion review can retroactively put me down as a merge. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom. Not important enough. Orientls (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mainly per GreenLipstickLesbian above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kif Augustine-Adams

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

None of the eight criteria at WP:NPROF applies to Augustine-Adams. It is true that she holds a named chair, but in my view she still does not satisfy criterion #5 because the BYU Law School is not an elite school that has the requisite "reputation for excellence and selectivity", as the specific notes say, like a Harvard or Yale would. White Whirlwind 15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think limiting notability of named professors to schools in the top ten is stretching the requirement for "excellence or selectivity". BYU Law School is ranked 28 in US News & World Report, that is enough of an indication of selectivity. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named professors at major US schools are almost always considered notable per C5. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - named professor at top 40 law school, almost stereotypically stellar cv. Easily passes the PROF test and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS citation profile [8] is a bit thin with top citations 64, 62, 52, 41, 24 and an h-index of 12, so unless I'm missing something obvious we're resting on the named chair alone here? Also the profile link to BYU law school given in the article no longer works, it looks to be here now: [9] (and there might be some copying concerns). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 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. asilvering (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Deora

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find anything much different from the stuff already in the article or in the sources. Source 4 is entirely promotional, and source 1 probably is too. A WP:BEFORE search was performed but I couldn't really find anything that establishes notability. If Google Translate is to be trusted, then sources 2 and 3 don't give any more depth either. Procyon117 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I forgot to add this but just to add) The sources say he has founded companies in different sectors but none of the sources actually say what those companies are aside from one or two. Procyon117 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from the articles in 'Navbharat Times' and 'Maharashtra Times', the other news sources are not strong enough. This makes it challenging for the article to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Baqi:) (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. The subject has not made a significant achievement as an Indian entrepreneur, noteworthy nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The L.U.V's

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND and lacks WP:SIGCOV, being a mostly local band from to the Rhode Island area from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Rhode Island. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. Just help revise the article. The article provides a standard amount of information. The editors assigned to this article are working hard all the time to provide the best possible information about the L.U.V's. 24.249.20.208 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also they have won the WBRU Rock Hunt in 1997 meeting the status "Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition." according to WP:NBAND. 24.249.20.208 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put things correctly, WBRU Rock Hunt is "a local band competition sponsored by the popular Providence radio station" ("Local band on to Rock Hunt finals". The Sun Chronicle. 25 March 2009.).--Muhandes (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and only failing that, Delete. Per nom, notability per WP:NBAND is not demonstrated; the only independent source present is a passing mention in the Providence Phoenix. However, the IP above, who is not the article's author, claims notability and may be able to locate reliable sources in time. Allow them to work on this in draft space. --Muhandes (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Liamlalaliam (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:NBAND here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBAND. Appears to be a short lived band only known within the city of Providence. The WBRU competition is a local city competition held by a local radio station and is not a significant music competition (ie a competition with a national or international reputation). The coverage is entirely local in scope, and the recordings the group made were with a non-notable indie label. Not seeing a need to draftify.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was a direct machine translation of the band's website, so I've deleted it per G12.‎. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janas (band)

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

Band which appears to fail WP:NBAND and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changu Narayan Temple

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

This monument, although recognized by UNESCO, isn't encyclopedic enough in its current state (the article was full of unsourced paragraphs). Furthermore, there's only one source, which I can't open. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say recognition as a Unesco world heritage site confers notability, though I'm not sure. is there a guideline/policy on this? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unesco world heritage makes the temple notable. A quick search reveals coverage by multiple reliable sources. Even if the article current state needs to be improved, I think, that is not a valid reason for deletion. The article could be tagged instead. I will try to improve it as soon as I have some free time. Marcocanol (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NBUILDING. Article needs work but WP:BEFORE check shows reliable coverage. I've added a refideas to the talk page with some sources. मल्ल (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This is basically an erronous nomination due to lack of knowledge in the nominators part. The fact that it is a unesco heritage site should have hinted to search for the source, instead of vandalizing the article and nominating for deletion.nirmal (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This article is about a historical site which is notable. if the content is unsourced, try finding sources or use maintenance templates, also you can remove the unsourced material. But the nomination for deletion is wrong.

Zuck28 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Kanté

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

This is one of many articles created by Zombie433, who has since been banned due to adding dubious stories. I cannot find any significant coverage for this men's footballer, who has never played at professional level, to meet WP:GNG. The sources provided are either match reports and routine transfer announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, and France. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pages should be judged on the subject and not the creator, but I concur that this is embellished. I removed remarks that he opted to play internationally for Mali, because the source didn't say that. I don't think this man got anywhere near international football. The infobox says three games for Southend United, which could have tipped the balance to keep, but the text only mentions a trial. I would usually use Soccerbase for English professional clubs in the 2000s, and it has no record of a Manuel Kanté playing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Records are also non-existent for his 2004-05 season with Falkirk - in which they won promotion to the Scottish Premier League. Finding one of three games from 45 that season in which he appeared would be a thankless task [10] Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Most of his career was spent with lower level teams with no evidence of winning any major trophies. Current resources link to mostly non-existent articles currently and only one is focused on subject of article. Does not have secondary sources to prove WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:FOOTYN or WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Heel-and-toe shifting. asilvering (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized down shift rev-matching system

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a highly promotional page about a Nissan proprietary product with no indications that I can find of wider notability and importance JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term exists [11], but beyond sites using the phrase, there isn't anything at length about this. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The French Wikipedia article has nine references. Left guide (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting: which is the manual equivalent this system is designed to replace. In that target, a section about the Nissan system would be a perfect fit. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we reach consensus between deleting and merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, the obvious place for a brief mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting. Seems like a reasonable WP:ATD in this case.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B4X

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

Not seeing any significant coverage of this Android IDE. The article itself is sourced entirely to a forum dedicated to the product (b4x.com) hosted by the product's developers (Anywhere Software). Any other sources to be found are just online tutorials, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quick WP:BEFORE I've done results in two sources: one two. I'm not confident that these are any good, especially the second one which has a part that would violate WP:CIRCULAR if used. If someone can attest to the reliability of Android Authority and Visual Studio Magazine that'd be quite helpful. I'm tending towards delete on this but if this vote gets in the way of a keep consensus then you can ignore it. 69.24.144.17 (talk) 13:47, 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. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cinemas

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

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)[reply]
This is very trivial coverage, certainly not sufficient per WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 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]

Delete or Redirect Doesn’t merit an article of its own. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any redirect target in mind? Owen× ☎ 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried, I did look for possible ATD but could not find any. Not List of movie theater chains#United Kingdom, and not even Cinema of the United Kingdom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Radhakrishnan

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article created by a sock who was originally blocked for UPE. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Most of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The last AFD opened by TheWikiholic was closed as no consensus. However the editors I'm tla and Rydex64 (page creator) who voted to keep the article have been blocked for socking and UPE. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Oaktree last time. I don't see any arguments against these sources... Aaron Liu (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being cited as a "voice of reason" if you will, glad my contributions here help. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this; now neutral because I do not know enough to evaluate Indian sources' connections to subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still a keep, with the same sources I cited in my last discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your arguments on the last AFD, [ [12] this is the only good source in the article. To establish GNG, we need atleast three such sources. The rest of the sources including the local ones are mostly paid. Also as pointed out by Mims Mentor, aside from being a well-known reality show contestant, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy enough to warrant an independent article. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thilsebatti@Mims Mentor Is there some way we're supposed to find out whether a source is paid? Some here seem to be implying that the TOI articles are good but others say they're also paid.
(Also, there's no set number to determine GNG, and my personal number is 2.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content in the article appears promotional as it primarily highlights achievements, accolades, and public recognition, seemingly aimed at enhancing the subject's image. Many of the sources cited resemble paid news articles, as indicated by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Aside from a controversial elimination from a reality show, the article lacks any notable achievements, with the subject's popularity largely limited to a local fan base in Kerala.--Mims Mentor (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. RSP says "Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials" for TOI, so is there a way supposed to check for whether a specific article is paid? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aaron Liu, Oaktree b. Most news articles from TOI and other reputable sources about the subject tend to have an "overly positive tone," catering primarily to fan-base entertainment. These references frequently emphasize the subject's role as a controversial contestant on a TV reality show, with little mention of any substantial achievements beyond that. This makes the content weak and unlikely to meet the WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG standards. Additionally, some references appear to be mere news versions of the subject’s social media posts, further weakening its credibility as independent sources.--Mims Mentor (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since "achievement" can be hard to determine, only the amount of unbiased coverage may determine notability. I am quite confused about Indian sources and paid coverage now. How can we determine whether a source is paid? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:It is evident that the subject does not adhere to the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR criteria. Only have some routine mentions, and the majority of sources are unreliable. Furthermore, a large number of the news stories have disclaimers without any bylines which means they are paid content. 111.92.70.85 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article stands as WP:BLP1E. Beyond a controversial reality show elimination, the subject lacks significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Loser of a reality show is almost never kept at AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 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 no consensus‎. Clear consensus for "not delete", but no consensus between keep and redirect. asilvering (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Real

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

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 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!} 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep either this or Reel Tight, merging text and redirecting to one or the other. It made three charts; the dead links don't matter as they can be resolved, and in the case of Vibe, the citation is to the mag; and the nominator gave no indication that a BEFORE was performed, let alone if the BEFORE used databases and non-Google methods to look for sources about a group from the late '90s... Caro7200 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The band's article just barely survived delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, and I have fleshed out their article a bit with sources from this album article, though there is very little to work with. That may alter the trajectory of this album AfD, though I will leave my vote as-is to avoid confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reel Tight: now that the target survived AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is likely the final relist - Can we reach a consensus between keeping this article or redirecting it to Reel Tight?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reel Tight: Fails WP:NALBUM, redirect to possible ATD since the target was kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM for appearing on multiple national music charts. There are enough critical reviews in the article as well to pass WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Ukrainian Genealogy Group

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

No refs on the page for a very long time. I see some passing references to the existence of the group but not substantial coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ukraine, and Canada. JMWt (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the article have notability and importance? Are the references you have found.

1. Independent

2. Notable

3. Secondary

4. Strictly independent of the subject? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 16:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not substantial - they are passing mentions. As I said. JMWt (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, and there really isn't any substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the group in reliable sources to salvage this with — I've been able to find primary sources and glancing namechecks of the fact that this group exists, but absolutely nothing where the group itself is the subject of coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on google news. GNG notice has been up for several years, indicating that no reliable sources for references are likely available. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:42, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liangyou Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and China. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) per nom. There’s no English language coverage of this company. If you find anything, please ping us. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian (talk · contribs), I've found Chinese-language sources that I've posted below. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network.
  This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."
  The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"
  From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."
2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"
  From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."
3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."
4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"
  From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."
5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.
  The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"
  From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) 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) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 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 merge‎ to Walpole, Massachusetts. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walpole (CDP), Massachusetts

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

A user who has only edited about this article states that there is no such census-designated place because a government guideline does no allow one to be within an incorporated place; the guideline does exist. (They then edited the article to say that it is not a CDP.) In the talk page, they wanted to proposed it be deleted, but didn't know how, so I am doing it for them. However, there is a US Census Bureau entry for Walpole CDP, Massaschusetts. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. There is also a Walpole (CDP), New Hampshire within Walpole, New Hampshire, so obviously the guideline means nothing or is being misinterpreted. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the entirety of most northeastern states is incorporated, the census doesn't see these towns the same way as towns in other states, so they still allow CDPs within them to identify population centers. Lots of these same-named CDPs in all of these states. Though they do make me question whether we should really consider all CDPs automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge with main article The reason for the CDP is that the legal town is much larger than the core settlement town part of Walpole. This can all be explained better in the main article instead of taking it out of context as it is now. CDPs aren't really notable independently of the communities they act as statistical proxies for. I expect the NH example ought to receive the same treatment. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article per Mangoe. Like many CDPs in New England, this CDP is nothing more than a statistical entity for an arbitrary section of a town. It doesn't exist as a real place distinct from the town itself, and this article is nothing more than contextless statistics. (Compare to Whitinsville, Massachusetts, and Housatonic, Massachusetts, where the CDPs are distinct villages with their own histories and identities.) I would recommend a wider discussion to decide which CDPs should be merged, but in the meantime this seems like an obvious merge to me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. This seems like a reasonable decision under the circumstances.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining in agriculture

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

Article covers a super narrow sub-specialist of research, with no easy way to maintain for about 8 years -- doesn't appear of lasting interest for Wikipedia readers, and its well out of date. Sadads (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is an increasingly relevant one, and there are plenty of hits in G-Scholar, some more recent than the ones in the article. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that the articles in this current article is indiscriminate, and would probably be handled better in a "data" or "machine learning" in agriculture -- I think the precision agriculture one is probably the best merge, Sadads (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge, first choice to Precision agriculture. The topic is covered too much for this to be deleted. But the article is largely an example farm uncritically summarizing primary sources. Merging to a new "data mining" section in Precision agriculture is the best option I have found, but I would consider other merge targets. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, a selective push of the content into another space, like precision agriculture. Sadads (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Walsh90210, this is an inappropriate example-farm. It's also written in the style of a comprehensive academic review paper, with intent to catalogue everything that's ever been done (think Annual Reviews of...). It fails to provide a selective overview of the field appropriate for an encyclopedia. For this reason, I don't think it's mergeable. Most of it would have to be deleted or drastically curtailed (basically a TNT deletion by another name), or a complete rewrite. If other editors agree, I'd prefer to see the entire Applications section removed, and the remainder of the article kept for future editors to build on. But I don't want it kept as it is, because there's too much risk of it lingering unchanged. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the applications section is the value here. Perhaps it could be reduced in size, but it does give an overall review of the state of the art. As with most "list"-type articles, there IS the danger of not being kept up to date, but I don't see that as a reason to remove the content. I also think that there is value in the sources - most look to be quite authoritative. If a merge is done, could these sources be included? Lamona (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blatantly notable - scholarly sources are numerous, and there have been even academic books on the topic. Concerns about the state of the article are not relevant. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE search in google books and google scholar makes it readily apparent that the topic easily passes WP:SIGCOV. WP:AFD is not cleanup, and with book-length coverage on this topic a merge is not appropriate. The solution, is to edit the article and make improvements by writing and expanding and sourcing the article to reliable secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Jeff

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. References are bios, links to released songs, and some unreliable sources. In fact, many of the references listed are with titles that are not actually stated in the reference. A WP:BEFORE found nothing that would add up to notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 197.239.8.10 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the self-published and self-described biographies, as well as interview/promo pieces in the reference section, I'm not seeing any reliable coverage from my searches of the subject (and from searching for the subject's keywords). The only reference in the article which seems to be not self-published, is a source which interviews/promotes the subject's charity acts. At this time, Jeff does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have page-blocked the author from editing the article for two weeks, due to their persistent attempts to remove the AfD tag. Please ping me if further intervention is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Utopes If the subject is not notable and doesn't meet the GNG guideline, there isn't really a great reason for Jeff to be on Wikipedia. Self Published and Self Described biographies clearly aren't references independent of the subject. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "male artist of the year" doesn't appear to be a notable award; happy to revisit if I'm wrong, but I agree with the nom and what's above, this is promo for a new artist. We don't have RS or much of anything to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakiv Pavlenko

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

Article by a novice editor of an academic with unclear notability and which has too many unsubstantiated claims. H-factor of 28 with 2574 cites so does not pass #C1. Page contains both significant WP:MILL (e.g. giving a seminar) and unsubstantiated claims such as "published more than 300 papers". GS shows 141 total, many uncited conference papers. Editor claims that he qualifies under #C2 which I am very dubious about since at most the Ukrainian State prize comes close. I tagged the page with notability questionable, and asked for verification of claims. Appsoft4 ignored request, so now it needs a wider discussion of notability (or not). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the author has strong views on this article but has been temporarily blocked from editing. In the interest of fairness, please consider this diff, which they indicated were their views on the AFD. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is not completely unnotable under PROF, the citations appear reasonably healthy. As the subject recently died, it is possible that more obituaries will be published (there is one in memoriam already in the article) which will provide GNG. There's a uk article that appears to predate the subject's death and was apparently not created by Appsoft4. Perhaps draftification is an option? Although the creator appears to have been quite disruptive, imo blocking them from participating in this AfD is not really in the interests of assessing whether or not the article subject meets our threshold. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were warned and asked repeatedly to stop removing the AfD tag and blanking this AfD but refused. They did so at least 10 times. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine you are a newbie who has written/translated an article on someone who has recently died, whom you strongly (and not irrationally) believe to be notable, and someone brings it to AfD. Blocking them such that the AfD will be settled in their absence feels... cruel. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it is not impossible that he may end up passing NPROF. Not on citations, as it is not a low citation field and many of his papers have multiple authors. Maybe #C2, although I am not convinced. It might be good for an independent editor to cut the MILL, sources & irrelevant material and add other independent material for us to look at. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to copy a comment here for Appsoft4 (the blocked creator of this article), and they offered the following rationale for keeping:
... why precisely Pavlenko meets one or more of the bullet points in WP:PROF and/or what reliable independent sources there are, such as obituaries, prize citations, reviews of his work or similar...
Here is a list (maybe even incomplete):
- Yakiv Pavlenko was given by one of two highest awards at the national level for the field of astronomy by The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU):
  - NASU Prize named after Mykola Barabashov [uk] (given to Yakiv Pavlenko and in 2009, presented in 2010): https://old.nas.gov.ua/EN/Competition/Pages/About.aspx?CompetitionID=033
    Source: https://old.nas.gov.ua/UA/Competition/Pages/Persons.aspx?CompetitionID=033&Year=2010
  - (Seconf one is NASU Prize named after Yevhen Fedorov [uk], but Yakiv Pavlenko never nominated for it.)
- Yakiv Pavlenko was given by the highest award at the national level for the field of science and technology by The Government of Ukraine:
  - State Prize of Ukraine in Science and Technology (given to Yakiv Pavlenko in 2014); since 2021, award was renamed to National Prize of Ukraine named after Borys Paton [uk]:
    Source: https://www.kdpu-nt.gov.ua/en/content/derzhavni-premiyi-ukrayini-v-galuzi-nauki-i-tehniki-2014-roku-oglyad-0
- Obituary was published by the Yaroslav Yatskiv [de], a notable Ukrainian astronomer, a directory of MAO NASU [de] (Yakiv Pavlenko was a Chief Research Fellow and headed one of its departments), an elected member of the Presidium of NASU and the Chief of the Ukrainian Astronomical Association [uk] (Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of NASU and UAA too).
  - Source: https://mao.kiev.ua/index.php/ua/81-in-memoriam/866-in-memoriam-pavlenko
  - Curriculum Vitae: https://mao.kiev.ua/staff/yp/TXT/yp0031.txt
  - LinkedIn: https://ua.linkedin.com/in/yakiv-pavlenko-6244a3b
- Research work includes more than 300 publications according to ORCID (on Google Scholar, used to reason adding Notability and AfD, ingoring WP:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics caution on Google Scholar, only 141 are listed, and on ResearcheGate only 272 are listed) — this may be not a direct notability proof, but it describes that adding Notability and AfD templates was not legit in the first place.
  - Source: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-4028
  - Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EmsP1AgAAAAJ
  - ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yakiv-Pavlenko#publications
- Article about Yakiv Pavlenko is published in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine.
  - Source: https://esu.com.ua/article-878326
- Yakiv Pavlenko's discovery of 5 new exocomets was published by valuable scientific news media.
  - Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ukrainian-astronomers-discover-exocomets-around-another-star/
- Yakiv Pavlenko co-autored few books, and one of them awarded by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a valuable non-government association for the field of astronautics, recognized by United Nations.
  - Source: https://iaaspace.org/members/awards/#Awards-Book
  - The IAA Basic Sciences Book Award (2016) certificate: https://mao.kiev.ua/biblio/mono/IAAsertificat.jpg
- Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of International Astronomical Union, European Astronomical Society, Ukrainian Astronomical Association [uk] and «Science At Risk!» digital platform.
  - IAU: https://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/1253/
  - EAS: https://eas.unige.ch/members.jsp (Yakiv Pavlenko's membership level is not public on website, but he not listed as an actual elected Council member https://eas.unige.ch/council.jsp, no info on the past Council members, though)
  - UAA: https://ukrastro.org.ua/ (website is in maintenance mode)
  - Science At Risk!: https://scienceatrisk.org/expert/pavlenko-yakiv-volodymyrovych
I suppose its enough to proof the notability. Appsoft4 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to copy his arguments here Unfortunately much of this is WP:MILL for academics (memberships), or not relevant (who wrote the obituary). He does not pass WP:NPROF#C1, or 3-8. To me the isuue is:

Do we consider the State Prize to pass WP:NPROF#C2. If yes, then we clean the article and keep it. If no it gets deleted.

Ldm1954 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I am somewhat persuaded by the notion that the subject is a notable scientist in Ukraine, if not internationally. The entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine could, I think, be considered to pass WP:ANYBIO #3. The obituary certainly would seem to go towards GNG, the Sci Am piece possibly, if Pavlenko were the key author on the exoplanets work, and the three together might be considered to meet GNG. Altogether I'm leaning keep, particularly swayed by the ANYBIO#3 argument. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based upon the discussion above, sources found, and my own search results. He apparently wrote 316 papers, but not all of them were accepted as peer reviewed and published on Google scholar. Having written at least six papers in physics myself that were not accepted, I interpret this as the difference. Probably some of them were poster presentations or other non-peer reviewed papers. I did a little cleaning and copywriting, and added a citation needed tag for his Doctor of Science degree. Otherwise, I’m leaning towards keep. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can only use those which have passed peer review, as this kind-off makes them RS. Hence I still see no evidence for WP:NPROF#C1.

What I do see as plausible is the suggestion by Espresso Addict that he passes WP:ANYBIO #3. I note that the text says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" so I am not certain. While I am familiar with WP:NPROF, I am not experienced enough on WP:ANYBIO to make a judgement. Maybe OXYLYPSE, AusLondonder and Praemonitus would like to make comments. Also, Bearian would you consider that he passes WP:ANYBIO? I will abstain on WP:ANYBIO, and will happily go with the concensus on that. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I did a bit of cleaning, removing some more WP:MILL and trimming the "Publications". However, there are still 17 which is too many. Unless someone else wants to do it I will just pick the most cited 10 of these (albeit probably not before next week). The description of conference proceeding papers and the refbombing probably needs to be cut/removed, and there is still more WP:MILL such as being an adviser etc. I would prefer to share the load here. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to work on it if it is kept; I've stopped working on articles during the deletion process (it feels like coercion, to be honest). I've been hibernating since January, so it is possible that things have changed, but I thought meeting ANYBIO #3 was generally considered enough. I and others have started many articles based on the British equivalent and I can't think of a time that I've seen one challenged, let alone successfully. There's sometimes objections for very small countries, but I don't think Ukraine would count there. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My only involvement so far was in reverting edit warring from RC Patrol. Whilst the article author has been fairly disruptive, it's actually an OK article. WP:ANYBIO is just a guideline, but I think the inclusion in the Ukrainian encyclopedia tips the scales for me. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:05, 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 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 12:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia

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

The sources do not provide sufficient significance to justify an independent article. News articles emphasize "concise promotional" content. While the article weakly meets WP:BIO standards, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He very obviously does not pass WP:PROF; the question is whether the in-depth sources about him are independent enough and reliable enough to pass WP:GNG. Indian news sources are rife with paid promotion per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and I suspect that some or most of the sources here have that issue. The first two (Patrika and News18) are obviously both taken from the same press release, so do not count as independent of each other and maybe not reliable and independent of the subject. India Today is specifically warned about in WP:RSP and our article has no depth of content about the subject. That leaves only the Free Press Journal, about which I know nothing, but whose writing appears more hagiographic than factual or informative. I don't find any of these convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gerry Reilly Cup. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Gerry Reilly Cup

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

Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here so I don't think this is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is for deletion, how will data be saved? I would need to add much of what is contained in the 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to the original Gerry Reilly Cup article, otherwise the information will be lost. Moresthepity (talk) 12:34, 5 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, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerry Reilly Cup – As WP:ATD. Under-16 competition that does not establish WP:GNG for each individual edition. Svartner (talk) 06:46, 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 redirect‎ to Earth, Wind & Fire (song)#Japanese version. asilvering (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).

Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earth, Wind & Fire (song) § Japanese version per nom. Nothing came up for my search Mach61 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 24 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!} 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: here's are the reasons!

Recent Release and Reception: "Good Day" is the first original Japanese-language song by BoyNextDoor, released on July 10, 2024, as part of their maxi single "And," which also includes Japanese re-recordings of previous hits. This context showcases its importance in the group's discography and the expanding international reach of K-pop.
Cultural Impact: The song, characterized as a hip-hop track, deals with themes of self-empowerment and enjoying solitude after a breakup. This relatable subject matter can resonate with a wide audience, enhancing its cultural relevance.
Industry Recognition: BoyNextDoor has already gained significant recognition in the K-pop industry, including awards such as the Global Rising Artist at the 2023 Melon Music Awards. This success indicates a strong fanbase and establishes their credibility as a notable act.
Source Citations: Provide citations from reputable K-pop news sites like Allkpop, Kpopping, and Kpoppie that cover the song's release and significance. These sources validate the content and add weight to the article's claims about the song's impact and the group's activities. ( https://www.allkpop.com/video/2024/08/boynextdoor-reveal-special-mv-for-good-day-b-side-track ), (https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10), (https://kpoppie.com/boynextdoor-members-profiles/)
OTHER LINKS:
https://www.allkpop.com
https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10
https://kpoppie.com

WikiNicExplorer 7:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
Point #2 doesn't describe any actual cultural impact, point #3 is discussing the notability of the band, not the song. Nobody is questioning the notability of the band, and point #4 is moot as none of those sources are reliable sources, and, in fact, most of them are specifically noted as unreliable sources at WP:KO/RS#UR.
Thanks RachelTensions (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why WP:Convenient Discussions is attributing the above keep vote to me, tried to fix it but anyway.. if anyone is confused it was made by WikiNicExplorer, not me. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI it would appear that @WikiNicExplorer's above "keep" vote was generated by AI (asking ChatGPT to generate a response for why this article should not be deleted results in almost identical text). RachelTensions (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiNicExplorer has been blocked for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nic.cartagena12 hence !vote should be voided. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:47, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boracay International Funboard Cup

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

Fails GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. The CNN link would be reliable but links to the general CNN travel website. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur. Not seeing anything with the "CNNgo" link for "fun things to do in 2010". All other coverage seems to be from Boracay blogs and other heavily-associated travel guides, and Wikipedia is not a WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Boracay is gorgeous and notable, but not every single event that goes on there is also notable. A passing mention in a brief CNN travel story is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 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. Rough consensus is that this particular campaign event does not have the lasting importance that warrants an article. There is also no obvious redirect target as an ATD: the event is not even mentioned in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, let alone in Donald Trump. Sandstein 17:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania

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

Some of Trump's rallies are independently notable. This one is not. This isn't the one where he was shot at or the one evoking comparisons to the 1939 Nazi rally at MSG. This is the rally where Trump decided to stop taking questions and start swaying to music. It was in the news for a bit, but two weeks later, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is absent. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, and Pennsylvania. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a WP:News article with only a brief burst of news coverage. Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article is also good to keep in mind, both for Donald Trump topics and in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: More of a list of songs than anything else, other than the groovy dance moves, I don't see notability. There is no lasting coverage of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This might warrant a sentence in a larger article about the campaign, but its actual significance looks like a footnote at best, barely a blip in the heavy media coverage cycle. Bludgeoning the article with near-duplicate sources from the same tight timeframe doesn't change that. Mockingbus (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait: the event did receive widespread coverage after it took place, and if Trump's mental acuity continues to be questioned (or worsen), this event might receive lasting coverage if people look back to it as "that moment when the decline was on full display", particularly if he manages to become President again. I think a wait and see approach would be best. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a "Gerald Ford forgot to shuck a tamale" kind of situation, even if it gets there (i.e. worth a sentence or two in the context of a larger article). In the biggest (and two weeks out, seemingly unlikely) case that this is "the turning point", that article probably looks very much different from this one, to the point that I would argue it would need to be rewritten from scratch even then. Mockingbus (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for deletion less than 2 hours after creation. Of course not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, but this event has received significantly more coverage than most Trump events. It was covered by numerous international news publications, as well as reliable entertainment, LGBTQ, music, political, and popular culture publications. The article includes reactions by both campaigns, the RNC, notable political commentators, notable politicians and former staffers, and notable musicians. I strongly disagree that this article is "more of a list of songs than anything else" that should be distilled down to a single sentence for another article, as suggested above. The article is a work in progress and I invite others to help expand and improve. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have expanded it, but you haven't demonstrated notability IMHO. The latest date I see on a reference is October 17, much like my WP:BEFORE search, indicating the lack of SUSTAINED coverage. As said above, there was a brief burst of news coverage that died out within 48 hours and this article is more of a Trump playlist than NEVENT article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are now sources as recent as November 12. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s keep discussing this. While I agree with Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, this was notable as a turning point in the campaign; it was the first time that the mainstream media took note of Trump’s recent appearance of “losing it.” Bearian (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a turning point? Was it even the first time? For the first I think you'd want to show a meaningful, sustained change in his polling numbers. For the second, I think coverage of his disjointed mental state has gone on long before in the campaign season, and even in his 2017-2021 Presidency. Take, for example, his "sharks and electric boats" rant in June, or his fixation on "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV." in 2021. Mockingbus (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian Were you planning to revisit this discussion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can easily be a blurb on the page for his 2024 campaign CNC33 (. . .talk) 17:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another Believer has substantially edited the article into a strong form. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was waiting to weigh in on this ntil I could see more evidence of sustained coverage of he event and/or its political-cultural impact. I think I just found it in "Donald Trump Is Bored", a NYT op-ed by John McWhorter published on Oct. 31, 2024. It also is a facet of a long form piece in The Atlantic, "Inside The Ruthless, Restless Final Days Of Trump's Campaign", published November 2, 2024. On the basis of this sustained impact, and the expansion by Another Believer, I am !voting to keep. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that neither of those articles articles give this rally any more than a one-line mention in the context of Trump's overall behavior shift that starts well before and continues well after the rally. Calling that thin coverage even "facets" seems… generous. Mockingbus (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But the nomination says "two weeks later, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is absent". This just isn't so if The New York Times and The Atlantic are still covering it in November. I think that it is important to refute the deletion nomination, if the reasons given in the nomination don't pertain. Maybe other !voters aren't looking as hard as I am, and just take that statement at face value. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone included this event on their recent article "The 20 Craziest Moments of the 2024 Presidential Race", covering it over 4 paragraphs. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and Y2kcrazyjoker4: Thanks, I've added these sources to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the Tim Alberta piece in The Atlantic now. The Oaks rally gets a passing mention (the entirety of it: The 40 minutes he spent onstage in Pennsylvania swaying silently to music prompted aides to exchange frenzied messages wondering whether the audio could be cut to get him off the stage. (Ultimately, they decided, letting him dance was less dangerous than letting him rant.); the MSG rally gets a whole section discussing Hinchcliffe and the blowback. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to just note WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS for you all here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but in this case Rolling Stone is not being used to support any controversial claims. Is it really problematic to say that a notable music journalist for Rolling Stone commented on the event? Or that the event was included in a list of the campaign's "craziest moments"? Also, sources like this show coverage beyond mid October. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per WP:TRUMPNOT. The article has tons of reliable sources and easily passes WP:GNG, but we must keep WP:NOTDIARY in mind. Instead of expanding this article, I think we should redirect it to his main page where we can devote a paragraph or two to this incident. Since he has some similar episode, we can create a subsection there about all the times he seemingly lost his marbles. But I don't think this single lapse deserves an entire article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The article has tons of reliable sources and easily passes WP:GNG" is an argument for keeping the article. TRUMPNOT is only an essay. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that Trump won, I think we can put to bed the idea that anyone is going to look back at this Oaks rally as a sign of anything to come. It's a mere footnote on a winning campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Respectfully, I don't really think this is notable. It is not still being talked about in the media AFAICT, especially not after he won, and does not appear to have much SUSTAINED coverage. I could see it getting a sentence or two in the article on the 2024 campaign, but it is not notable enough for its own article. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see how this would pass WP:NEVENT#4 (Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. I have read the arguments above, and I really don't see much enduring significance nor sustained coverage that would indicate such a thing—the NYT op-ed mentioned above is is not reliable for facts, while the piece in The Atlantic is an in-passing mention at most. Even though there was wide coverage at the time, WP:NEVENT guides against notability here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this has more than a passing mention. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Thanks for keeping this open. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Roudyk

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

Reads like a promotional release about the DJ. Unless someone can find RS talking about him (aside from album/single/remix releases) I think he fails WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wrap

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Technology, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brothers' College, Boksburg

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see some passing mentions in autobiographies and regurgitated PR in local media but nothing significant. I'd be interested to hear if anyone can find much else JMWt (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and South Africa. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mold-Tek Packaging

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be a speedy keep per WP:LISTED? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 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 delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Morita

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

The claim to notability, playing 15 games in Japan's second league 10 years ago, is weak. The sources (including in the ja:wiki) are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The creator of the article is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:44, 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 merge‎ to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Chaos. asilvering (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. No independent notability of the subject, but surprisingly the Chao aren't actually on the list yet (And linked at Chaos for some reason? I get he's a mutated Chao but beyond that there's very little association.) Several detailed searches have been done in the past and turned up nothing but review quotes or similar, and many of the current refs constitute as Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do think that the Chao Garden itself is marginally notable. [13] [14] [15] However, this article is unsalvageable and would require a total rewrite to fulfill notability, centered around the minigame rather than the actual creatures. It shouldn't be left as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's state is dreadful, but the Chao / Chao Garden definitely meet notability requirements. From a quick Google search I found a Nintendo Life feature, two articles on a Chao-inspired game, multiple articles on Iizuka's announcement there wouldn't be a standalone Chao game ([16][17], [18]), and a few articles on a Chao Garden fan game (Polygon, Kotaku), all filled with commentary that could be integrated in this article. It might be worth reworking this into a Chao Garden-focused article instead of having it as a Chao article, as sources more describe the mode as a whole than the characters specifically. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zx mentioned that also and I do agree, the mini game may have some notability. The chao themselves though, not so much, and this whole article would have to be rewritten to focus on Chao Garden.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a notable aspect of the Sonic the Hedgehog series with a good amount of independent sources. Article needs revisions to be a good article, but otherwise it's good to stay. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSNOTABLE. If you are referring to the above mentioned sources, the Chao themselves and the Chao Garden minigame are an important distinction. The article as currently written is all about Chao as a being and only slightly mentions the Chao Garden. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then rename it into "Chao Garden" per above. I don't see any reason on why this article should remain, until some actual sigcov have been discovered. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boneless Pizza. There doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV, but this can be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere. There also may be something to writing an article about an unreleased game. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the references I provided? There's definitely SIGCOV of the Chao Garden. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this material. This can definitely be repurposed, and there is room on Wikipedia as a fairly significant part of the Sonic series. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet, participants are divided between Merge and Keep. There is some confusion over whether this article is on "Chao" or "Chao Garden" and whether or not that distinction matters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Chaos. The nom gives the same premise from the merge discussion 10 years ago: the mentions in the sources are trivial. The Chao Garden is best associated with Sonic Adventure 2 and any mention of the Chao Garden legacy/influence should first be mentioned within that article before warranting a split to a dedicated article. There is no indication above that the "Chao" article shouldn't redirect to the dedicated character section. czar 04:04, 10 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

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

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Harrison (investor)

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

Looks to be entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N - investing in something is not a notable achievement. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 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 06:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaja Adeoye

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

Fails WP:NPOL. ref bombed to make the subject politically notable but he is a CEO who is passionate about his work. Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are either unreliable or marginally reliable. Usable sources that could establish notability are neither independent of the subject nor in-depth. A cursory search for more sources does not turn up any significant coverage thus failing the general notability critera that would warrant an inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been adjusted. Thank you Joseph4real1995 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been adjusted. You can as well make your own contribution. Thank you! Joseph4real1995 (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been improvements but the sources are paid sources (such as this) and routine coverages. My !vote still remains. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish any notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 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 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 06:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olufemi Bakre

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

The sources of this article is largely about Parallex Bank rather than the subject. The subject of the article also have a quite number of awards but are mostly run of the mill. Therefore, this article fails WP: GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic does not merit the inclusion criteria needed for a biography of a living person. The awards presented to him does not meet criteria for ANYBIO nor the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:06, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the previous AfD and it seems to me that the problem is that "cultural icon" is completely undefined. Entries on such a list may be verified, but they are at the whim of the commentator in the source calling them an icon. I see no purpose in such a random list: delete. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Literature, Music, Architecture, Animal, Entertainment, History, Royalty and nobility, Fashion, Popular culture, Science, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. "Cultural icon" is far too vague a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsville, Indiana

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

I'm having considerable trouble in Floyd County, as the book citations are all failing verification. There are two references to a Scottsville in it, but neither is on the cited page, and it's not clear that either of them refers to a place in Indiana. And in any case both are location name drops. The topo seems to indicate that someone thought about a town there, but there's no evidence it ever amounted to anything. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Levit

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

An Israeli photographer. It doesn't seem particularly significant.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Uzbekistan, Israel, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I started to copy edit but gave up. What a mess. If you can fix it, ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Whizkin (talk) 06:53, 10 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.