Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 11

< October 10 October 12 >
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 redirect‎ to Tramlink. I started writing this as an apologetic "no consensus" close, but that made less sense as I wrote the rationale, so redirect it is. My read of the arguments here is that the delete/redirect arguments have the upper hand in terms of being policy-focused and on topic; with no strong reason to delete the page history, and the broader discussion ongoing, redirect as WP:ATD seems most appropriate. However, my read of the discussion is that AfD isn't the right place to handle this broader issue collaboratively. I suggest that editors try to work out the notability of each stop in this line on the talk page of the main Tramlink article, redirecting all that are found to be non-notable, and only bringing individual stops to AfD if the discussion really breaks down. asilvering (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Street tram stop

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

Train stations are not automatically notable and need to meet WP:GNG. This individual tram stop which is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop does not meet WP:GNG. Both sources are primary and do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky one. I agree that "a raised piece of concrete" appears not to be notable. However I see from the Tramlink article that every stop on the system has a blue link. Are we proposing to delete all of these? I would also imagine that there are many railway stations (or "halts") around the world which have minimal infrastructure, but nevertheless have their own article. To give an example, the tram stops listed in List of Manx Electric Railway stations each have their own article, despite having minimal infrastructure and much less traffic than the Croydon Tramlink (and the Manx rolling stock being more flimsy than that in Croydon). Ehrenkater (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. If you find other non-notable articles, please nominate them for deletion. Please assess this AfD on its own merits. If this AfD results in a consensus to delete/redirect then we can do that for other non-notable Croydon stops. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Manx Electric Railway has been around a century longer than Tramlink, so there are plenty of books about the history of the system that are used as sources in the articles about it. I suspect it'll take a few more decades for Tramlink to be in that situation... Adam Sampson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should be voting for Merge or Redirect (and you can do so with the stated intent of pending the result of that other discussion), not vote Keep without actually presenting a Keep argument for notability of the subject matter. SilverserenC 23:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Hopefully closing admin will disregard keep votes without valid rationale. The clear community-wide consensus is that rail infrastructure must meet GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I should not be !voting for something different to what I believe to be the best outcome for readers of the encyclopaedia: That keeping these articles in their present state until the outcome of such a discussion concludes how best to present information on this set of closely related subjects. Recommending merge or redirect implies a preference for redirection or merging somewhere now and then possibly demerged or merged elsewhere after the discussion concludes. That would be significantly more disruptive for everyone, possibly more work for editors, and bring no benefits to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any indication of notability from available sources. I hope someone can present some at some point, but none are evident currently. The closer should remember that AfD discussions are about determining notability of a subject matter and not about discussions of Merging or Redirecting (though those can be outcomes of AfD discussions). Thus, any Keep votes that don't make an actual argument of notability on policy grounds needs be disregarded when determining the outcome of the AfD. SilverserenC 23:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. It's a plausible search term so deletion should be off the table and I'm disappointed to see this here rather than a broader discussion about these articles as a group. Nonetheless, although the system is clearly notable and some stops on it may be, the majority do not appear to have significant third-party coverage so a list of stops is preferable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck my comment. Based on the discussion with the nominator below, it is clear that this is a bad-faith nomination in an attempt to "win" an argument elsewhere and not one genuinely concerned with assessing the notability (or otherwise) of the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: I'm really surprised and disappointed by you casting aspersions on me. You are absolutely wrong. I have no objection to a broader discussion although I'm frankly not convinced the London transport project is the best place for an unbiased review. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed a lot of good faith in the discussion at WT:N and the early stages of this discussion because I thought we were working towards a shared goal, assessing the notability of these tram stops and deciding what to do with the articles if the GNG is not met—not getting rid of them by whatever means necessary, including nominating an article that will at worst be merged or redirected at Articles for Deletion. The London Transport project seems like the best place to find editors who may have sources. So far, none containing significant coverage of individual stops have been found so the discussion is moving on to the mechanics of redirecting, so the result is likely to be more-or-less the same but without wasting everyone's time with 30-something AfDs and after looking for sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the broader system. Does not appear notable on its own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Coverage wise there is some from this book about the tram system Croydon Tramlink.
It is likely not enough for straight GNG pass, but I'm voting keeping mainly as I agree with the other keep voters that removing a single article with no plans on how to deal with the rest of the system causes more problems than it solves, as it ends up no one does the work of cleaning up the other articles and we have a navigational & consistency gap. I note that a bundled AfD does not have to be a "review every station or do nothing", it is perfectly fine to evaluate sections of the system at a time (looking at the map, one good starting "set" could be the stations from Lloyd Park to New Addington). If I was voting on a bundled AfD I would of voted to make a listicle instead of keeping.
That aside, if one of the delete !voters volunteers to complete the job of evaluating the rest of the stations and making changes as needed then feel free to automatically convert my vote to Merge to List of Tramlink stops (with redirect to Tramlink as interm target) Jumpytoo Talk 01:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to start somewhere. We can't keep saying "yes, I know it fails every notability requirement but keep because we have hundreds of other articles that also fail those requirements". That's not a serious argument. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder so let's have a discussion about the articles as a group. I agree with you that it's likely we'll end up merging/redurecting the majority of them but surely it makes more sense to do it from one central discussion than relitigating the same question 39 times? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do a group nomination because those often become unmanageable disasters. I was also keeping in mind that at Wikipedia talk:Notability several editors have claimed that some tram stops may be notable and that each team stop should be assessed individually. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like circular reasoning to me (something you've been quick to accuse others of), and a deliberate misrepresentation of what has actually been said at WT:N. That's very disappointing. I was hoping for a good-faith discussion that would critically evaluate these articles and that the result would be apparent from that evaluation, not for a discussion where one editor tries to force through their preferred decision based on a subjective opinion of importance. I guess I'll go and start that discussion somewhere and follow it where it leads; I want no further part of this AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so angry? I was literally told that some tram stops are notable and others are not, which I accepted in good faith. From the discussion at WT:N Tram stops are more complicated than railway stations - some are notable, some aren't and they need to be assessed individually. These comments were explicitly agreed with by several editors. How on earth am I misrepresenting that? AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument, per WP:OSE: It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point and In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. If you want to pierce the argument I am currently making, there needs to at the very least a promise to do such evaluation to show that what OSE allows is not the case. Jumpytoo Talk 17:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is an essay. It has exactly zero policy weight in any deletion discussion. Especially when you ignore the entire rest of the OSE section to cherry-pick something that has little relevance to what is being discussed. We are explicitly not discussing something that has clear notability for the vast majority of members. That is specifically something that has not been showcased or presented in any manner. In fact, the notability of really any tram stop has not been presented, let alone the majority of them. SilverserenC 18:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This AfD is for this particular topic's suitability as a standalone. Local consensuses at wikiprojects do not override P&Gs, and the broader question of "how to treat the Croydon Tramlink stops" is totally irrelevant to whether this stop meets notability guidelines. Any pseudo-navigational purpose of this article is fulfilled with a redirect to Tramlink#Routes so it doesn't even sound like a "discussion" about Croydon Tramlink stops would offer a single reason to retain any of these articles anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop is harsh and uncollaborative. Cremastra (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry the feelings of the poor defenseless tram stop were so hurt by calling it what it is. But perhaps considering things a little more impersonally would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Available sources do not prove notability for this individual tram stop, so a separate article is not needed - hence I'm not recommending keep. A redirect to a List of Tramlink stops article would be my preferred solution but if and until one is created, a redirect to the line is a valid AtD. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see the 2023 RfC as preventing this AfD from continuing. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop had less participation than this AfD already has, so it can certainly not be used as precedent-setting to overrule this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wings

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

Promo UPE article. Refs are paid for PR, non-bylined content and promo articles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwatakwata:@Colapeninsula: Can you give me two other sources that prove he is notable. The LA Weekly coverage is a good WP:SECONDARY but it is single reference and is likely only seen a WP:OR. WP:BLP which states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" means must have good sources. Another two and I close this. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question It looks to me like the TimesLive and Sunday World articles are substantial. From what I can learn on the sites themselves, both seem to have suitable stature in their markets. User:scope_creep, do you have information that would lead us to conclude that these are not reliable sources? Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TimesLive one looks like an interview containing several quotes by him, copied verbatim, which make the majority of the article along with an image supplied by him. The Sundayworld is another similar type of thing. They have used an image of him from instagram. It may better but I don't know, hence this Afd. They dont seem particularly independent. scope_creepTalk 09:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forensics since a simple incision seems not to be enough. We have & found:
Simple, typical, unexceptional announcements of a new hip hop release in a hip hop website, such as this in The Source, e.g. "new single and album are available on all digital streaming platforms. Check out latest single below," etc; the LA Weekly reproducing here a press release put together by our subject's PR; TshisAlive, the promotional branch of the South African Sunday Times putting out advertorials about every little thing concerning their artist, e.g. here about a beef with Ticketpro, here about philanthropy plans, etc; a lot of items about the one truly notable event in our subject's career, i.e. the "Burna Boy debacle," e.g. here, all doused by a strong sprinkle of promotion; assorted dead links; and that's it. Try as we graciously might, there is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Half-Life

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

Not verifiable and doesn't appear notable. Unsure if it is different from Gamespy's other Planet Network websites, maybe merge to GameSpy. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source analysis of newly found ones to see if they meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week to see if there's agreement or dissent to Mika1h's proposed sources meeting notability standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:53, 27 September 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) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't access ProQuest, but I'll assume those are decent coverages. My library card might allow me access, I might just boot up their website and look... Otherwise, mentioned here [6], but that's not enough for notability. There's some coverage in Gscholar linked in the deletion template, but these are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, if you log in to Wikipedia Library first, then launch ProQuest from that page, you should have the same access. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Please note that this is a re-closure of this nomination, based on a review requested at my talk page.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee lens investing

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A vague term invented by a company for something that it does. The references have a bit on the company (most of them just passing along self-published material) and the leader, but there is no coverage much less the required in-depth coverage on what this actual is. As result the article is just vague arm waving and related platitude about refugees without even cover covering the putative topic North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugʻbek Shodibekov

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

Not notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:SINGER. An earlier version of the article falsely claimed that he has received the State Nihol Award. It's not a state award, nor does the cited (and unreliable) source mention anything about any award. Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry entirely lack WP:RELIABILITY.

  • Kun: an interview with the subject of the entry.
  • Malumot: a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
  • Savol-javob: another Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
  • Daryo: another interview with the subject of the article.
  • Uzmedia: a highly unreliable entertainment blog.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev talk 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. While the 'delete's make a very strong case, looking for further input from other editors to either confirm this as a consensus or dispute it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chughtai Lab

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

Fails WP:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the analysis of those three references:
    1. It is about a corporate partnership, marked as "BR Web Desk", no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV.
    2. Not directly about the company, but about a vaccine. Full of quotes, Chughtai said this and that.
    3. Again, MOU, a press release style article with no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the deletion argument is the more compelling, but hasn't had much support outside the nominator. Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dink (software company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of independent sources. ~ A412 talk! 22:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Vaughn

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

Seems to have only released singles so far. The sources are a bit questionable as well. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Uppsala River Rafting Event

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

WP:ROTM university event. The event is a real tradition, and has its own website: [7], but I can't find any independent coverage in RS, at least not in English. Article seems to have been unsourced since creation. If sources could be found in Swedish I would reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sweden. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't access the newspaper archive I typically use to go though Swedish sources right now, but I think a couple of the ones I've added are substantial enough (a couple of the others help add sources for individual poins, but are less important for notability). This is a major event in Uppsala, tens of thousands of spectators, with proper media coverage. /Julle (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm similarly disadvantaged rn, but essentially in agreement with Julle's analysis. Open print media archives show sustained interest throughout the 80s, 90s and 2010s, most of it is likely brief mentions, but I'm convinced from what I've personally read and seen over the years that there is independent and in-depth coverage in substantial excess to what Julle has already provided. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Julle and Draken Bowser, even just the sources Julle added in the article as it stands shows significant coverage from two independent sources. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

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

Subject fails notability guidelines and article reads with significant WP:FLUFF. The majority of sources constitute self-published material on the subject's blog or secondary sources based significantly on said blog. Additional sources used appear notable at first, such as this MIT reference, but a look at the url (which includes /egilbert/) identifies this as also being written by the subject. There are one or two interviews the subject has done with reliable sources, but these read similarly to the blog. No reliable source could be found outside of interviews done with him or someone closely related to him. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DJ Cane, I have declared the COI. I apologize for taking a while to do so. I still believe that Gilbertson's achievements are notable in the climbing world. If the article is written in a more encyclopedic tone by other editors and some of the major sources Gilbertson has done interviews with (mentioned in talk page) are added to the article and his blog is reduced, could the article still be preserved? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @KnowledgeIsPower9281, thank you for the COI declaration. I think these would be good steps. I can't speak for others but I still lean delete unless one or two sources that are not interviews or directly referencing his blog are provided. I was not able to find any myself. As I said on the Mount Rainier talk page, I think the work Gilbertson is doing has merit, but I don't think anything meets WP:GNG yet based on what I've seen. I suspect that if his work with Mount Rainier National Park comes out to something, he would then meet the guideline, but a prediction of future notability does not equal current notability.
I saw Gilbertson's work was referenced in The Seattle Times recently, but this falls back to the media blitz he did after publishing his Mount Rainier findings on the blog. If the Seattle-area media attention ends up amounting to more than "fifteen minutes of fame" or comes to extend outside of Seattle, this would also be acceptable to me. That said, we work by community consensus here so my opinion is not the only one that matters. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "outside of Seattle", do you mean Seattle-based media covering Gilbertson's achievements outside of the Washington area, or do you mean sources based outside Seattle? While we have come to a consensus ExplorersWeb is not reliable, Gilbertson has done interviews with international sources such as Nat Geo Poland, BBC, The Times of London, and Sueddeutsche Zeitung (behind a paywall, but Gilbertson has a PDF file available). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to media coverage from sources outside the Seattle-area that aren't interviews but are independent coverage of Gilbertson. A source including quotes from him is fine, but I'd like to see sources that aren't interviews. As it stands right now, the only possible WP:SIGCOV has come in the last month or so related to the Mount Rainier stuff, which falls under WP:TOOSOON as Cabrils mentions.
Note that if this article gets deleted, I recommend retaining a copy (reworked with references to the blog removed) in your sandbox/user space for future use in the event that he becomes notable. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Shima (queen). asilvering (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Sima

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

A draft that was recreated in mainspace. Very few/no high quality sources on Google. The sources that exist seem to not have undergone editorial review. Systemic bias might be an issue here, though. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Music Stars

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

Unsourced article that clearly fails GNG, as I couldn’t find even any ROTM coverage, let alone SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sargodha#Administration. Any editor is welcome to merge content to this article or to Sargodha Division. asilvering (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Corporation Sargodha

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

Fails GNG and NORG as well. WP:ATD should be merged or redirected to Sargodha Division. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sullivan (author)

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

Something is going on with Sullivans notability; either he's barely notable, or he's not notable at all. The sources in the article are questionable at best, the sources found on Google/DuckDuckGo similarly leave something to be desired. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ouellette

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

Lack of Notability as proposed by another user. Creating discussion here Dac04 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20111014225118/http://beinart.org/artists/dan-ouellette/gallery/drawings/ ? ? ? unable to reach archived page. Connection timed out ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20110221102515/http://djangomedia.com/directors/Dan-Ouellette ? ? ? unable to reach archived page. Connection timed out ? Unknown
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Daniel-Ouellette/author/B004LQTKNC?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true No No No Amazon listing of books. No reason to infer notability ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110808001228/http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/cyberpunk-art/spotlight-the-art-of-dan-ouellette/ ? ? ? unable to reach archived page. Connection timed ou ? Unknown
https://www.instagram.com/artist.a.day/ No No No no mention of Dan Ouellette on this generic Instagram page ✘ No
https://filmmakermagazine.com/53187-dreams-from-a-petrified-head-director-dan-ouellette/ No ? sub-page of "The Gotham" No interview ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardi Curse

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

I see no sign that this curse is a well-known part of football folklore. None of the references provided mention a "Lombardi Curse" and the first hit on Google is about a Lombardi Curse that seemed to plague the Philadelphia Eagles. Pichpich (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says that it is a term in american football Hidden1234P (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and there is zero evidence provided that this is a common term when discussing the Vikings. Content on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Pichpich (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more sources Hidden1234P (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG with no SIGCOV. A Google serach on the topic only shows fan forums and Wiki mirrors so it is unlikely that any significant coverage exists at all. As @Hidden1234P: plans to add more sources, I am requesting this user ping me once sources are added, so I can evaluate and reconsider my vote. Frank Anchor 13:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero WP:RS. I’m not saying that nobody believes in this urban legend. I’m saying that no reliable secondary source has written about it in a significant way. At least one of the sources is “deprecated.” We are not a directory of every sports myth. I’m not again a redirect to an appropriate target, Bearian (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many RSes referring to a "Lombardi Curse" but not necessarily with the Vikings. There are references in a similar context to the Bills and the Eagles (obviously from before they won the Super Bowl a few years ago), and in a different context to the Packers. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Aghaei

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

Fails notability, based on the article most of his achievements are in provincial competitions. his only notable achievement is a silver in Asian "Youth" Championship which I think is not good enough. there is not much coverage about him if you google his name in both Persian and English. Sports2021 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neom Stadium

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

WP:TOOSOON; I doubt it will open; nevertheless, the sources are insufficient. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madripoor

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

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus to delete; a merge discussion may be fruitful, but can take place at the talk page.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latveria

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

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The references are reliable enough for a comic-book article; and the books in the further reading and references section seem independent and reliable enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom. All content related to Latveria is intrinsically linked to Doctor Doom and better covered there. I checked the sources used in the article, and the only one used that acts without being entirely tied to Doctor Doom is The Hidden Europe: What Eastern Europeans Can Teach Us, where it is used only in a humorous manner when the author describes Latvia, and is not really significant coverage as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read over the source, and while it's very good analysis, my problem is that it's discussing Latveria entirely in association with how it impacts Doom's character. Again, like with the other sources, Latveria is an element of Doctor Doom and Doom's backstory. It's entirely associated with him and every source and is never discussed entirely independently of Doom, or with a great level of separation from Doom. I disagree with the assessment that it's too long to merge as well; much of the information in the article is useless lists of random in-universe content, and unsourced information on obscure information that is not necessary for a reader to understand the subject.
Wikipedia:NOPAGE states that even if a subject is tangentially notable, it is better off merged with other content if it is more beneficial to do so. I believe two of the three reasons listed at that page apply to Latveria, I believe. "Does other information provide needed context?" Yes, because Doom is fundamentally a necessary part of understanding why Latveria is important and intrinsically tied to Latveria's reception. "Do related topics provide needed context?" Yes, as per the previous reason, Doom is required to make sense of Latveria's importance and notability. Per the sourcing shown, which I can analyze further if need be, Latveria and Doom are intrinsically tied in Reception, and as a result, readers will receive the needed context substantially more easily if the two subjects are put in the same article, where both can be more easily weighed and understood for how they influence each other's notability and impact.
Right now, I feel as though this discussion has not adequately shown why Latveria inherently needs a separate article from Doom. I feel that this issue needs to be addressed adequately, as right now most participants in this discussion have merely been votes keeping on principle rather than seriously discussing whether or not these sources are adequately meeting Wikipedia's policy guidelines for separate articles or not. I implore the above voters (@DoctorWhoFan91, @Jclemens, @Walsh90210, and @BOZ) to please clarify how these sources are individually notable from Doctor Doom, and what elements of these sources you feel prove your points in this regard. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Ladder (Keaney novel)

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability for a decade. Won some non-notable awards. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewed in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, Kirkus. all are on ProQuest which is a WPL resource). Shorter review in Horn Book Guide. Don’t have the time on my hands rn to look further, sorry :(. If not notable, should redirect to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at proquest this time and those didn't seem particularly indepth. Even then it wouldn't meet WP:THREE Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBOOK is two so WP:THREE doesn’t matter. Yes I haven’t had time to check, including newspapers or other book review sources, hence why I did not vote. Particularly in depth is not a requirement, merely that they be significant. I have not assessed this PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added three reviews, more than satisfying WP:NBOOK. Certainly a paltry article, but not qualified for deletion. Οἶδα (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Queen Vic Fire Week. asilvering (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Victoria

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

Non-notable fork of Queen Vic Fire Week, which has more and better sources. Coverage of this location is incidental to the other article, leaving this article as filled with unsourced material and failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emarid College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no significant coverage in any reliable source. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loretto School of Childhood

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

There's zero coverage about this school, not even passing mentions in any source.[13]. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tantua International Group of Schools

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

Fails to satisfy the notability guideline for schools, the sources cited here are unacceptable and the only okay source I could find is an interview with one of its alumni who only makes a passing mention [14]. There's no significant coverage about this school. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Piazza Memorial School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I did a WP:BEFORE search and could only locate 2 sources making a passing mention of this school[15][16], not enough to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Mixon

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

Article subject fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR. A search for information on the subject, or his books, shows minimal results and no noteworthy reviews or coverage, failing WP:SIGCOV. The tone is overall promotional and relies entirely on primary sources. Vegantics (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Segeč

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nom, a redirect is optimal. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Baduizm. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baduizm World Tour

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Baduizm World Tour. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArtHouse Live

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

No claim to notability is made within the article and there doesn't seem to be any coverage online. Orgs domain name is expired so can't even see what they have to say for themsevles. First two sections aren't even about the same entity. Article seems to have flown under the radar for several years with same issues. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Football in Albania. ✗plicit 14:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kategoria Amatore I

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

Fails WP:GNG. Search results don't show WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Red Hill water crisis. This WP:ATD appears to satisfy the draftify !voters, and no delete !votes have argued that the full page history needs deleting, so I hope they'll also be satisfied with a redirect. asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Baehr

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand-alone list. This page falls beyond that primary criterion. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Law.com, https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/08/18/3-8m-texas-verdict-lawyer-leaves-intellectual-property-practice-for-toxic-torts/?slreturn=2024100483307 Yes Yes See RSN discussions here, here Yes ✔ Yes
CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/what-homeowners-need-to-know-about-toxic-mold-exposure.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
KXAN, https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/how-toxic-mold-cost-one-austin-family-their-home-health/ Yes Yes Major local news station Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • CBS and military.com quote her but don't add anything about her except that she's the counsel. Reuters is even briefer.
  • KITV doesn't mention her
Oblivy (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say she inherits notability from Red Hill. I'm saying that the sources in the assessment above show a GNG pass, and that her involvement in Red Hill (additional sources, not in article, here: Stars and Stripes, Honolulu Civil Beat, Hawaii News Now, KITV, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, KHON) demonstrates that she is not only notable for the mold-related case. If we had just the Red Hill case to go on, I'd agree with you that it's not enough SIGCOV. But we have SIGCOV in reliable sources for the mold-related lawsuit, plus solid reliable-source coverage for another case, and that takes us beyond BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are making is an inherited argument. She is mentioned as the lawyer for the Red Hill case, and nothing in the sources you cited is about her separate from her role in that case. Her role can be discussed at that page. Again, I truly respect your attempt to find sources, but I'm confident in my view. Oblivy (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I highly doubt the quality of the source assessment. For example, the CNBC piece is full of citations and formulations like: "Kristina said," "Baehrs said," and "someone else said....

Here is some random part from the text: And that house, Kristina Baehr said, was slowly killing them. The family abandoned it and everything inside to escape the mold. All of their clothing, toys and personal belongings — even the family Bible — are a total loss. They also remain on a strict regimen of medications and therapies to detoxify their bodies.

On the financial side, the mold nightmare has wiped out the family’s savings, Evan Baehr said. He estimated they’ve spent more than a million dollars on demolition, repair and reconstruction, along with relocation costs, medical copays and out-of-pocket treatment expenses.

“You’ve done everything that you can to prepare to take care of your family financially — and then suddenly a year later, and it’s all gone,” said he Baehr.

The family has filed litigation against the companies that designed and constructed their home as they look to recoup their losses. Kristina said it’s been a long and arduous legal process, but she believes it will be worth it.

“I’m going to go to the ends of the earth and back to get recovery so that our kids can be safe going forward and so that we can rebuild their lives and have the resources to provide for their medical care,” Kristina Baehr said.--Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Routine, non-notable law career. "Opening a boutique law firm in 2021" suggests this is promo. Sources are reading like an extended CV. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources in the table above talk about her and the family being exposed to toxic mould, not about her law career. Being exposed to mould doesn't make you notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be a concerted effort to protect this article, but per the comment above and nomination, she fails WP:GNG by a substantial margin. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Clearly I have not been sufficiently persuasive. However, I think there’s a reasonable chance that additional SIGCOV could result in the near future depending on the outcome of the Red Hill litigation. It may have just been WP:TOOSOON. I’d ask participants here to extend the courtesy of supporting draftificaton to see if more sources that meet the community’s expectations emerge. (I would certainly commit not to move thus back to mainspace without additional future SIGCOV added.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I recommend a different WP:ATD, that this be redirected to Red Hill water crisis? Similar to draftification insofar as the history and text would be preserved, but without the 6-month countdown to deletion. @Dr vulpes I saw you changed your vote to draftify, and would ask you to consider doing the same. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be ok with that but I would want to hear what @Dclemens1971 thinks first. They have a pretty good grasp on this stuff and it was their mention of sending to draft that made me even think about that path. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the "delete" !voters seemed unusually hostile to this topic being in mainspace, which is why I suggested draftification as a preferred alternative. If redirection is acceptable that's fine by me too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kogbagidi

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

I don’t see any other thing here to proof notable than relationship with Portable. 7G🍁 (🪓) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7G🍁 I noticed that an article I worked on has been nominated for deletion.
Before drafting the article, I conducted a thorough search and found reliable sources from nationally recognized newspapers that verify the subject's notability. These sources provide substantial coverage, and I believe they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Elohothedon 19:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elohothedon, can you provide these sources? Reading Beans 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans References were included in the article. Elohothedon 07:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Thanks[reply]
@Elohothedon, this confirms that the coverage around him are mainly due to a conflict with Portable. Read about WP:BLP1E to familiarise yourself with the reason for nomination. Best, Reading Beans 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans@Reading Beans This is well noted. Elohothedon 15:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Afterlife. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness after death

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

Article is largely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH including the section "neuroscience" which uses sources that do not specifically mention consciousness after death. Content should be on-topic we should not create articles that are based on original research. I believe the article should be redirected to life after death which is the main article where the concept of survival after death is discussed. I am not convinced any of this content is worth merging. We already have articles on death, life after death and near-death experience which cover such content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this concept exists in a few religious and cultural traditions, but it’s actually already handled in those contexts in more appropriate pages. I don’t think this is synonymous with life after death in the sense that article means it, because I’m more familiar with it referring to the idea that, despite no vital signs, the dead can still hear (rather than being in some kind of afterlife) but that’s such a fine nuance that the redirect probably is better than any other option. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Sambonsuge

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

23 years ago he played 18 games in Japan's second league, but no indication of significant and independent coverage to make him meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. (No such coverage in ja:wiki either) Also played amateur football for several years. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Yanagida

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

Played two years in Japan's third tier, but no trace of significant and independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT (only primary sources in the ja:wiki). Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasubhai Digital Media

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, which is a key criterion for notability on Wikipedia. Additionally, the content primarily focuses on the company's promotional activities Moarnighar (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Black Racing

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

Defunct and unsuccessful racing team that only competed for three seasons. The few citations are trivial & routine coverage of a sports team, failing NCORP. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 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! 07:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Nagesh

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

Lack of references and don't think this is notable. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 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! 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Blade Runner (franchise)#Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night

[edit]
Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book is not notable in any way. For a long time (2001-2021), this article existed without references of any kind. It currently holds the record for the longest such article on the English Wikipedia, which is interesting, but isn't enough to make it notable (per this discussion). Of the two references that were then added, I have just removed one as circular, apparently based on this Wikipedia article, as are most of the handful of sources that one finds on Google. The remaining reference is so weak, it may as well not be there, see my talk page comment. I have notified the relevant WikiProject before, without reply. Renerpho (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to CESC Limited. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Electric Traction Company (Mumbai)

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

due to its lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it difficult to establish notability. Additionally, the content primarily relies on primary sources and promotional material, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 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! 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see how this could be improved beyond a dictionary definition. The term/concept doesn't appear to have been theorized by philosophers or STS scholars. I could only find passing mentions like this one: "In the case of new and innovative technologies, we do not have accident statistics for calculating failure probabilities for the simple reason that no accidents have yet occurred. In such cases, engineers often employ fault trees or event trees in order to estimate the probability of failure. An event tree sketches possible sequences of events that can follow some kind of potential technical failure, like the failure of a plane’s landing gear to properly operate. A fault tree sketches the possible series of events that can lead to an accident such as, for instance, the crashing of an aeroplane." Suriname0 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manouchehr Behzadi

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

Apparent memorial page for an Iranian activist based on related or possibly unreliable sources. Holding senior positions in Tudeh does not seem to me to amount to a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to UFO sightings in the United States. Since there is an objection to a Merge, I'm closing this as a Redirect as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sperry UFO case

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

None of the cited sources are WP:RS. After searching, I cannot find a single WP:FRIND source to cover this topic. It's had a banner warning that it gives undue weight to the fringe viewpoint, but every source I can find is either an interview with the witness or from within ufology. I checked some books that cover many famous UFO sightings like Curtis Peebles' Watch the skies!: a chronicle of the flying saucer myth, and I don't see this mentioned. Rjjiii (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Voyles

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

Like John Storm (AfD discussion) another bio of a fairly routine soldier from the American Revolutionary war. This article appears to be pieced together from primary source and family records; I can't find anything that would indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of The A-Team characters#John "Hannibal" Smith. It would have been helpful if new sources brought up here had been added to the article or links provided in this discussion so that other editors could have evaluated them. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 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! 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Gül

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

Being mayor of a town of 50,000 doesn’t make for a WP:NPOL pass, and despite his local controversies I don’t think the subject is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 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! 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Exchanger

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

This crypto exchange does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search does not turn up any coverage in reliable sources, only mentions in crypto forums and blogs. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find PR items [18]... And putting in the article that you don't do "know your customer" analysis, nor money laundering tracking is pretty much admitting you're an illegal financial operation, just an fyi. That's not really helping notability, and admitting to illegal activities on the open web might not be the best business decision. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn’t true. Given that it operates solely on Tor, we cannot definitively say if they are functioning in a country that violates any laws, so claiming money laundering and similar accusations isn’t really valid. If that were the case, decentralized exchanges and privacy coins shouldn’t be listed here either. Additionally, they could be aligned with a BRICS-type framework. KYC (Know Your Customer) is very much a standard used by Western banks and international banks, but not all banks follow these rules.
    If we remove this article, then what’s next? Are we going to start asking to remove offshore companies that happen to be shells from history? Removing this article would be like arguing with history. It’s a site that has been up for a long time and documents a significant period in cryptocurrency history and its evolution. Darkwebhistory (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't meet notability requirements, regardless. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. It would be great to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J062309.94-045624.6

[edit]
WISEPA J062309.94-045624.6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep Redirect to List of brown dwarfs This article fails WP:NASTRO, I did WP:BEFORE and there are only three academic sources but none have anything notable about this object that would satisfy WP:NASTRO. If anyone finds material for this article please ping me, I'll add it to the article and withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to IMOCA 60. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4

[edit]
IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its common practice that every IMOCA 60 has its own page, like the french wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Initiatives-C%C5%93ur_4). The importance is given by the Vendée Globe starting only in about two months. Give me some time to bring the article up to speed. V.Glas (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@V.Glas You created the page This page was created in November 2023 and it has had no independent, reliable, secondary sources since then. That seems like plenty of time to find them and "bring the article up to speed." (I don't believe they exist, since I searched for them WP:BEFORE nominating.) As for your argument that "it's common practice," that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that does not rely on any actual guidelines, and we follow English Wikipedia guidelines here. What is your policy-based reason for keeping this article? One alternative, if you believe sources will be available after the Vendee Globe, is to draftify this article, which is the appropriate place for it if you're still working on finding sources. Let me know what you think. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I did not create the page. That was @Yachty4000. If you are looking for sources or notability, take the French article as reference. I already translated and added some parts. V.Glas (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my misstatement and have struck it above. Regardless there is now a week for sufficient sources to be identified. As I said, I didn’t find any that fit the bill (and I looked in French as well). But if you find some and they do meet the standards of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: V.Glas has added several sources. Five of them are to the IMOCA website and thus not independent. Three ([20], [21], [22]) are WP:INTERVIEWS with the boat's skipper and thus primary sources. One ([23]) is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in an article about several boats being built for the Vendee Globe. One ([24]) appears to be a publicity piece. Two ([25], [26]) do not mention the Initiative Coeur 4 at all. One ([27]) appears to be self-published. And finally, one ([28]) is a brief mention amid WP:ROUTINE race coverage. In short, I still don't see any SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Further input would be of assistance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Halliday

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

Subject of article is not notable, sources cited show that they were sent to jail for a contempt of court charge and a misdemeanor picketing charge. Article is very WP:PROMO and not WP:NPOV. I did WP:BEFORE and he mentioned briefly in a three books one of them is a published that only publishes material on veganism and animal rights. The mentions were not in-depth from what I could tell. There is a section about his writing but none of the material would qualify under WP:NAUTHOR Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also article was PRODed so that's why I brought it here to AfD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnimalRightsArchivist if you think there are some materials that are offline that would be helpful we could also send this article to draft which would give you some time to gather everything needed. For example I use the Internet Archive for a lot of sourcing but it's been offline for a few days, but you also might know of sources in magazines or books that aren't available online. I know that some of the books I noticed his name in were from really small presses so they might not have everything scanned online. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking us together @Czar. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to PBS Wisconsin. Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Place (TV Series)

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

Completely unsourced. Tried Googling for sources, and got a bunch of official PBS websites (that is, they weren't third-party sources). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the only source I can find that provides significant coverage of University Place:
    1. Ziff, Deborah (2008-07-28). "WPT's new stations to get more viewers. Charter will add the four public broadcasting digital stations in August" (pages 1 and 2). Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-10-14. Retrieved 2024-10-14 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It's 11 a.m. on a weekday, and that means it's time for "University Place" on Wisconsin Public Television's newly unveiled station, the Wisconsin Channel. For two hours a day, the station airs mostly local university lectures on topics ranging from Fur Trade 101 to Why We Age. ... He acknowledges that not everyone will be interested in the ancient glacial lakes of Wisconsin and other lecture topics on "University Place." ... More than 75 lectures have been taped for "University Place," mostly from UW-Madison, but also from Harvard Medical School, the University of California, Santa Barbara and other schools. WPT employees identify lectures they hope will be of general interest and plan to record lectures from colleges throughout the state.Wisconsin Public Television coordinates with stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania to create content for "University Place.""

    Cunard (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.