Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 22

< October 21 October 23 >
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Incarnate Word Cardinals softball team

[edit]
2023 Incarnate Word Cardinals softball team (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 and WP:NSEASONS. This is a run-of-the-mill college softball team that compiled a mediocre 28–26 record, won no championships and did not have other notable accomplishments. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources and is based instead on databases sources and/or routine press releases from non-independent, captive sources such as the school and conference websites. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 22 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 11:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collibra

[edit]
Collibra (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)

Profile of a corporation, recently recreated after a PROD, still fails WP:NCORP. All sources are to the organization's own website and/or press releases, or they are WP:ORGTRIV (news of expansions, capital raises, etc) that don't constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to some sources, one of their products has been rated as the leading product in its category by Gartner's Magic Quadrant. Should not that make it notable? Sauer202 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that claim is... Collibra itself! Any Gartner coverage of this is hidden behind paywalls on the Gartner website, so I haven't seen it, but I suspect it would qualify as WP:ORGTRIV under as "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists." Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think big names in tech should be on Wikipedia if they are notable.

I believe the unicorn sources clearly meet the notability guidelines as significant, independent, reliable and secondary:

  • Eerste Belgische 'unicorn': Collibra is meer dan één miljard dollar waard
  • Belgian tech unicorn Collibra raises €104M funding at €2.1B valuation, aims to grow its big data management platform
  • Collibra to Create 200+ Jobs in Fulton Co. | Governor Brian P. Kemp Office of the Governor
  • Belgian data intelligence company Collibra doubles its unicorn valuation with new $112.5 million round - Tech.eu

On "Collibra Named a Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant for Metadata Management Solutions for the Fifth Consecutive Year | Collibra", I will not purchase the original report(s) for the sake of the argument, but I find the information presented trustworthy in view of it being quite scandalous if a big company like Collibra were to falsify that they had been awarded the title as leaders in their business domain by a company like Gartner for several years.

On "Alation vs. Collibra vs. Informatica vs. Atlan: Evaluation Guide", this is a comparison by a competitor which is significant, and might be seen as "independent" since it from a competitor.

Considered together, I think that Collibra has received significant coverage from independent, reliable and secondary sources. Sauer202 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in the nomination, the sources are WP:ORGTRIV, routine news about location openings, valuations, capital raises, rankings, etc. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is essentially a textbook too soon WP:SERIESA, in that we don't accept random awards and listings as indications that we should have an article, as opposed to the additional criteria we have for some other subjects like WP:ANYBIO, most of them are essentially useless (though, even for people, we wouldn't expect an award to confer notability unless a: we had an article on the award and b: that article says how it's super important in the field. Think Pulitzer, Nobel or Grammy). There needs to be actual coverage outside the usual WP:CORPROUTINE announcements, and I do not see any of that, at all. As a side note, to clarify a point of the guidelines, WP:ORGIND excludes (emphasis mine) other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 29 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. With no prejudice against a formal merge proposal to discuss that possibility. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warraich (clan)

[edit]
Warraich (clan) (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)

Clan fails WP:GNG. Recent draftification and redirection have both been reverted. GTrang (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 22 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! 23:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cairns

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 22 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 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ellix

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 22 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 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Loudon

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 22 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 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Quantock

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 22 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 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cyr

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 22 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! 23:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davies (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew "Danger" Davies) so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 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. asilvering (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lennard

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional competitor on the world stage who won the News of the World Darts Championship, the British Matchplay and the Swedish Open. Reaching the quarter-finals of the World Championship in 1980 is notable as is being part of the England team which won the WDF World Cup in 1979. Can be sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 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 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Raes

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 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 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan de Hoog

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 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 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Barden

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 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 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Valletto

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 22 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 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David DePriest

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 22 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 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ladley

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 22 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 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gittins

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Bateman

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 22 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. ✗plicit 11:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug McCarthy

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess whether sources available can establish GNG notability as notability is not gained from events an individual participates in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 22 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! 23:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Nasser Abdel Fattah Mohamed

[edit]
Abdel Nasser Abdel Fattah Mohamed (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)

Recreation of deleted bio that was previously part of a cross-project hoax see for example "COI and CIR" in https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 HouseOfChange (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 22 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! 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Peat

[edit]
Ray Peat (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)

Ray Peat is a man known for having what could be most nicely described as extremely eccentric views on nutrition. If you've ever wondered why so many people dislike seed oils, he is partly a source. He is very popular in niche online communities. None of the sources here evidence notability, and a search found none more. I believe he will probably be notable someday - but not now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 22 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! 22:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 North Dakota State Bison softball team

[edit]
2024 North Dakota State Bison softball team (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 and WP:NSEASONS. This is a run-of-the-mill college softball team that compiled a less-than-mediocre 17–37 record, won no championships and did not have other notable accomplishments. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources and is based instead on databases sources and/or routine press releases from non-independent, captive sources such as the school and conference websites. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As primary contributor - I agree this can be deleted, as no further reasonable resources could be found. natethegreat4226 (talk) 02:28, 23 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) 02:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feyaad Allie

[edit]
Feyaad Allie (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 BLP article, sending it here as an alternative to WP:BLPPROD as a quick WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up evidence of significant coverage. Sources I found included this non-independent writing from the Award Committee of an award he got, this article (in French) that only quotes him twice but doesn't provide SIGCOV, and this profile from a fellowship program he is a part of. I didn't find anything that would indicate WP:GNG is likely met. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.harvard.edu/people/faculty/

--DelphiLore (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: DelphiLore (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  • Delete - A search shows that this academic meets neither WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Associate professor, cited by 14 according to GScholar, does not meet PROF. An attempt to source the article did not turn up anything that would make the subject meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 15:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the reasoning above and checking Semantic Scholar only one of Allie's papers has been cited by others in the database with only one of those being "highly influential" by their criteria. As such a clear case of not meeting PROF. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no specific number of "highly influential" citations mentioned in the criteria. Therefore, relying on absence of more than one "highly influential" citation does not constitute a clear case of not meeting the required standard. --DelphiLore — Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DelphiLore (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
    You are correct that there is no specific criteria about what is notable. That does not mean that Wikipedia does not have standards. The criteria for "highly influential" citations in Semantic Scholar is loose. One study found that 4.57% of all citations were rated as such across the over 200 million publications in Semantic Scholar. Even if they are averaging only 1 citation per paper that is over nine million such highly influential citations. My interpretation of these facts is that one such HI citation in one paper is the scientific equivalent of having walked onto a lower level professional football pitch once. It is not notable.
    Also, by adding another bulleted comment with a bold keep you have in effect voted twice. Please avoid doing so again in the future. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No significant coverage. No secondary independent reliable sources and the subject has not made any significant impact or achievement that is noteworthy nationally or internationally. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we have never kept at AfD a a scholar with such a slim record. He earned his PhD … this year. He is an assistant professor, which lacks tenure. We almost never keep non-tenured professors, and I can think of only one non-chair who has passed the prof test. Without significant coverage, he doesn’t pass general notability either. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 25 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! 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Mino

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

Delete per WP:TNT, and for failing WP:SIGCOV. Article has major sourcing and verifiability issues. Several of the claims are not supported or only partially supported by the provided citations. Most of the cited references that are not dead do not actually verify the article content. For example, most of the cited sources do not name the roles she played in the productions or how long she played them, or review her performance at all. They only list her as a cast member in an un-named part, and do not review her performance. For this reason, I don't think we can assume the dead links are accurately verifying the content. The article will need a complete re-write which is why WP:TNT is a valid argument. Additionally, none of the sources have Mino as the primary subject so it is not clear at all that GNG is met. 4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 22 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.

This article was previously nominated for an AFD but the AFD page was deleted after it was created so I think I can treat it as if it didn't happen. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enduser (musician)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 19:26, 22 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. Per WP:HEY, the "keep" !votes note that many sources have been located and added to the article since it was nominated for deletion. (non-admin closure) Rjjiii (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Nelson Cushing

[edit]
Josiah Nelson Cushing (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 well sourced, and of course, I couldn't find any in a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Extend. The article may not be well sourced, but I believe as much time as can be afforded should be given to allow editors to find a source FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FLIPPINGOUT My intent is to prevent an abandoned article due to overzealous eventualism. A week is long enough to find enough sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography is on the Web Archive but it's down for now. If there was a way to put an AfD on hold, I'd suggest waiting until the book is available to evaluate. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it I dream of horses. There’s a discussion of his translation on pages 51-53 of the pdf in this article which corresponds to pages 176-178 of the text, and refers to yer another name for the language, the Kachin. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Please add sources to the article. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that anyone else will do it. I have yet to create or even significantly expand an article, and so it's probably best that it isn't it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I have added several sources that refer to the subject’s pioneering work in translation of the Bible into the Shan language. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including extra content sourced to references showing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as described in this discussion. Therefore WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 27 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! 17:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kolobova

[edit]
Olga Kolobova (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:SIGCOV. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON as she is young. Article is largely based on a single source which does have independent significant coverage. I was unable to locate a second source of equal quality. The other source is published by her employer and lacks independence. While this does not necessarily mean that she doesn't deserve an article, the Russian language wiki has no entry on this singer and the article is an orphan. It's possible Russian language sources exist that I missed, so if anyone knows a Russian language speaking wikipedian who is active on the English wiki, it might be good to ping them for an opinion. They might have better luck searching for sources. 4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 22 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! 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Singh Yadav

[edit]
Sanjay Singh Yadav (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 meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL criteria. The subject is only mentioned in a few news articles, and there is no significant coverage available. It’s unclear how the article has survived this long without meeting notability standards. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Subject fails WP:NPOL and W:GNG. Some sources are self-published or not independent.- TheWikiholic (talk) 07:23, 27 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dee Theodore

[edit]
Ali Dee Theodore (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)

Previously Expired PROD. concern was: "Insufficient coverage in reliable sources; accomplishments relate to his company, not him, so he is not notable under WP:NMUSIC"—that still stands. This is just a largely unsourced database entry, and the provided sources do not talk about him but are generic product listing/database entries. Unless new & better sources are introduced, this individual does not appear to have enough sig, in-depth coverage. X (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the article as it stands could do with better sources - and quite a lot of work on formatting - but a quick google shows that he is notable enough and covered in news articles, Billboard magazine, etc. that qualifies him for inclusion. His music has been used a LOT in films, which makes him pretty notable. I don't have time to spend on improving it now but would like to come back to it if nobody else does. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I would get rid of all of those long lists and just keep a selection of notable films. Else could draftify until it is up to standard. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I can't see sigcov of him personally (eg: for Billboard [7][8][9]), the format is totally unsuitable, and it's not clear at all to me what is significant. For example, He-man and the Masters of the Universe credits him for "title music" on IMDB, but when you dig he's not the main composer and there's a lot of people credited for title music[10][11]; there's no info on Hawkeye's December the 24[12]; he's in as an executive music producer for a season of Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks but not as composer[13][14]; he's third credited name on Underdoggs' See Me Rock It[15]. The only criterion that he looks to maybe pass is WP:NMUSIC#10 but it's likely to require a lot of digging to establish the evidence for this and to cut his article down to noteworthy works. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:33, 22 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! 17:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middletown Park, Indiana

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

This is an older subdivision on the outskirts of Muncie, as explained here. Even the author of said work doesn't hold it a notable town, or even a town at all. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 22 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 West Bengal University of Health Sciences. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JMN Medical College

[edit]
JMN Medical 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. While doing WP:BEFORE, I only found passing mentions. The current sources do not provide SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 16:13, 22 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 Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygon

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

I believe this subject fails independent notability. A search through News, Scholar, and Books nails various results for "Zygon", but the vast bulk of the results are discussing the episodes they featured in (Three of which have "Zygon" in the title) and are acting as individual analyses of those respective episodes. Nearly all sourcing mentioning the Zygons is only discussing them in the context of a wider review or analysis of the episode, and anything else that does exist is a trivial mention that isn't enough to build an article on. Additionally, all of the article's current sourcing is similar excerpts from reviews, with the only real claim to notability being David Tennant liking them (A minor bit of trivia) and a wasp being named after them (Which does not automatically indicate notability per numerous subjects who get animals named after them that also lack articles). A viable AtD is to the Zygon section of "List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens" where the bulk of the notable information on the Zygons as a species is already contained. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cremastra (u — c) 23:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sources do not go into detail about this and it fails WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into listed AtD. The Zygon section can easily be expanded by a paragraph or two. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into listed AtD, List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, per nominator's rationale. Mr Sitcom (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. I think the article with the commentary based on secondary sources we have now, even if plot summary and publication history were significantly trimmed, would still be a non-stubby article which also fullfills WP:NOTPLOT. Therefore, WP:WHYN and thus WP:N is fullfilled. It is not relevant with regard to notability, if the article topic is the main topic of the source, so I see no reasons to discount sources which are episode reviews, as long as they have something to say directly on the Zygons as opposed to just on the episode while mentioning Zygons in passing. In the interest of forming consensus I am not opposed to merging this into List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, where most of the content based on secondary sources is already present, if another paragraph with plot summary and publication history is added as suggested by DoctorWhoFan91.
BTW, thanks to the nominator for providing those details on the results of their WP:BEFORE search rather than just writing "fails notability because there were no secondary sources". I find this very helpful and it reduces the time one has to spend when participating in a deletion discussion, time I would prefer to spend editing elsewhere. Daranios (talk) 14:56, 25 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! 17:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnanagar Institute of Medical Science

[edit]
Krishnanagar Institute of Medical Science (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 institute fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The creator is an AP flag holder and has been creating articles like this one, which have no sources cited other than YouTube. The institute is claimed to have been established this year. GrabUp - Talk 16:04, 22 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! 17:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda: 1883

[edit]
Andromeda: 1883 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show third-party reliable source coverage about the film (reviews by professional film critics, production coverage, evidence of notable awards, etc.) -- but this is completely unreferenced, and even on a Google search for other sources I found primary source (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Roku, YouTube) evidence that the film exists, but I found absolutely nothing in the way of reliable or GNG-worthy coverage about it at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if circumstances change, but a film's mere existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable and secondary sources to show that the subject pass Notability for Wp:NFILM Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:47, 22 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 14:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Top Educational Institute

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

Delete – fails WP:GNG criteria. Notability is not established or even hinted in the article's content, and the references do not establish any notability – one is a link to a Google search, the other is a link to a web page with all schools in the area. It exists, but does not appear to be notable in any way. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These links are notable sir/madam. I would like to add more links in few days. Give me some time 2409:40D5:108F:72C7:C6B5:72B2:DD86:B5A8 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it comes with all the reliable information.This school is officially recognised by The Government of India.So I think that this article should not be nominated for deletion @Hill Top Educational Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Shahzaman1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Catalysing transformational change in school education". UNICEF. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
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 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime (series)

[edit]
True Crime (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)

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage of the series as a whole. Serves as a recap of the two game articles, and the development section of Sleeping Dogs. Goes against what is stated in the manual of style at WP:VG/POP#Remakes, expansions, and series articles:

Delete. The series is too small in scale to even warrant this series article to be changed to a redirect. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:22, 25 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 Yorktown, Indiana. ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Muncie, Indiana

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

This is an edge case given that the history cited in the article does actually have a section on this place. But what it says is almost completely at odds with the picture of this as a 19th century-founded town that's still a going concern: what it says is that yes, a town was founded, and quickly failed. I haven't seen as egregious a misrepresentation of a cited source in these discussions since the days of going over the California articles. (To be clear, the original author wasn't responsible for this; the citation was added later by another.) One could make an argument from WP:GEOLAND that since the documentation is there, an article must be written; I say this is a clear WP:GNG fail, and an example of why GEOLAND is a bad guideline. And as a rule we haven't kept articles on failed settlements unless the failure itself was notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually @WeirdNAnnoyed: I see this should be redirected to Yorktown, Indiana#History where the story of the town's failure is related; also, the location falls within Yorktown, whereas the spot is some five miles outside Muncie proper. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, updated my redirect target accordingly. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:25, 23 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. I see a consensus to Keep the article. (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 17:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intervac International

[edit]
Intervac International (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 indication of notability. Google only shows some press releases and fleeting mentions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rauter, R.; Gsodam, P.; Ngyuen, T. D.; Stabauer, P.; Baumgartner, R. J. (October 2013). "New Business Models in Austria - Forerunners in Sustainable Economics" (PDF). Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research (ISIS) Reports. No. 4. University of Graz. pp. 30–33. ISSN 2305-2511. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-05-08. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article was released under CC BY 3.0 according to page ii. The article notes: "INTERVAC was the inventor of the idea of home swapping and has been discovered and pioneered home swapping practices ever since. The origin of the idea of home swapping can be dated back to 1953, stemming from collaboration between teachers to offer low-cost vacation accommodations among their colleagues around the globe. The development of the home swapping model is mainly driven by demand from the market. After the initial trials, participated teachers found that it is an enjoyable way of travelling and realised that living in each other's homes was great for cultivating international friendships. INTERVAC’s home swapping concepts and services has been growing ever since – not confined to teacher group anymore, but open to all the people that are interested in home swapping. In the beginning, swapping offers were only available in printed version. Offers were printed and tacked into a catalogue and sent to all members. Thanks to the internet, INTERVAC could use online platforms to spread information to all partners, with a much higher information density and with the possibility of immediate updating. Nowadays, INVERVAC has innovated again by offering free application for iPhone and iPad, and by showing all available homes on Google maps. Thus, it makes partner-searching process easier, clearer and more enjoyable. All in all, these above mentioned innovations in communication channels fostered a better diffusion of the home swapping services in and out of Europe."

    2. Marton, Andrew (1988-12-11). "Helpful hints to a house swap". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A handful of international exchange services helps filter the bounty of home choice available. Intervac International has, since 1953, served as the clearing house for a series of European and American-run home-exchange operations. Among the 30 countries participating in Intervac International's home-exchange directory are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel. Malta, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Most home exchangers hail from Europe and the United States. Many have retired, but the two most frequent professional groups eager to swap are doctors and teachers—the latter taking advantage of their academic year's long summer holiday. Vacationers tend to consult with Intervac International's US branch when preparing for a swap. However, Intervac has competition from a growing number of exchange organizations, each with a slightly different sales pitch:"

    3. Kaye, Evelyn (1993). Family Travel: Terrific New Vacations for Today's Families. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Penguin Publications. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-9626231-3-4. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Intervac International began in 1953 , and today has some 8,000 listings. More than 80 percent of the listings are outside the United States with the majority in France, followed by England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany. There are also listings in Iceland, India, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Zimbabwe. The membership is mostly upscale, professional and in education. A directory is published every year in February with supplements in April and June. The Intervac International Affiliates in 26 countries invite individuals to join local groups, which, in the United States is in San Francisco."

    4. Kavin, Kim (2006). The Everything Family Guide To Timeshares: Buy Smart, Avoid Pitfalls, And Enjoy Your Vacations to the Max!. Avon, Massachusetts: F+W Publications. ISBN 978-1-59337-711-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Intervac is not a timeshare exchange company per se, but it has been helping people from different nations to exchange homes worldwide since 1953. There is no reason you cannot use it as a timeshare exchange network, even though it is set up differently than most of the others that are described in this chapter. In fact, if you try Intervac with your timeshare unit and enjoy the experience, you can add your personal home or additional vacation property into its system, as well, for different levels of trades."

    5. Frommer, Arthur (2009). Spring, Michael (ed.). Ask Arthur Frommer: And Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-470-41849-9. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The book notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange (800/756-4663; www. intervacus.com), founded more than a half-century ago and operated today in the United States by Paula Jaffe, is typical of the several vacation-exchange clubs that enable Americans to swap their homes or apartments with those of persons in other cities, in the United States or abroad, during their respective vacations. By permitting individuals to make use of a valuable asset-their own home or apartment—to live free elsewhere, it enables tens of thousands to travel in the best possible manner. And as you learn the modest charges for participation in Intervac ($65 for United States membership, $95 international, for a yearly Web-only membership), you immediately see that its managers are not involved in this business to get rich."

    6. Woods, Judith (1997-09-15). "This family wanted a holiday. So they swapped their home in West Calder for a Tennessee chicken farm". The Scotsman. Factiva sc00000020011003dt9f0089y. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange, which has 10,000 members worldwide, with around 1,300 based in Britain, publishes a thick directory every year. To the uninitiated, the 450-page brochure is written in impenetrable code: for example, the letter "t" beneath an entry means good public transport, "hp" equates with "house suitable for disabled people" and "ae" signifies the use or exchange of a car. But the list of abbreviations is as important, if not more so, as the small photograph of the property in attracting potential swappers. The house may look unprepossessing, but if it has all the necessary facilities, be it a fax machine or a private beach, then it will have appeal. From Stockholm to New York, Athens to St Andrews, there are householders asking for swaps, offering rentals, house-sitting opportunities and "hospitality" breaks, where families travel and stay with each other on an exchange basis. After receiving the brochure, it is up to home owners to make contact and follow up their own arrangements, telephoning and writing to each other. It costs #80 to join Intervac."

    7. Clarke, Maureen. "Convert Your Country House into an Urban Flat with a Home Exchange". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-02-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "The three biggest home exchange facilitators are Intervac, the first company of its kind, which specializes in European travel (tel. 80% of its properties are outside the U.S.); ... Intervac (tel. 800/756-4663; www.intervacus.com), the oldest and most experienced facilitator, requires membership for access and boasts of having the toughest terms of use. The second largest company, they have 10,000 members in 52 countries. Intervac prints its property lists in catalogs, as well as on the Internet, including 1,000 to 2,500 properties in the U.S., France, and the U.K. alone. Hundreds more are available in other countries throughout the world, mostly in Europe, but as far afield as Bali and Nepal. Intervac members pay between $68.88 a year, for online listings, to $168.88 a year, for online and print listings combined. They also position English-speaking representatives in many countries."

    8. Frommer, Arthur (2005-03-30). "Swap Homes and Stay for Free: We introduce you to this fabulously inexpensive, highly personal form of travel". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Intervac U.S. (30 Corte San Fernando, Tiburon, CA, 94920, tel. 800/756-HOME or 415/435-3497, Web: www.intervacus.com), of which Paul Jaffe is founder and co-owner. Members have a myriad of options for joining, starting at $68 for Web members who can access Web-only text and photos, or $128 for book directories and full Web access. Seniors receive $6 off if receiving the book directory of listings. Two catalogue directories are sent out each year, in April and December. Each year, Intervac has about 10,000 offers listed, in over 50 countries. And Mrs. Horne is not just a matchmaker for house traders. She is also an avid home exchanger, having swapped homes more than a dozen times in Europe alone."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intervac to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In addition to what Cunard has listed above, I find a number of articles in a Swedish newspaper archive, e.g. "10 000 familjer väntar på napp" (Helsingborgs Dagblad, 16 November 1996, 250 words mostly about Intervac), "Bostadsbytare samlas i Åhus" (local paper, and with interview portions, so not a terribly important addition to this conversation; Kristianstadsbladet 27 July 2007, 500 words), and a lot of shorter pieces in articles where people talk about house swapping in general and discuss Intervac as an important predecessor. /Julle (talk) 13:07, 25 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 11:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bakanlıklar

[edit]
Bakanlıklar (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)

Tagged uncited for years and Turkish article also uncited. I searched for sources but it is hard for me to tell if this place is notable as I am not a native speaker and don’t live in Ankara. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is a well-known area in downtown Ankara and appears on pretty much all maps of the city. It is a bit like “Whitehall” as a term, and unfortunately literally means “ministries”. There will be sources in Turkish about the history and development of the area and its street, major buildings and historical significance, but trying to fillet that out of the general mass of items just about “ministries” would be a daunting task. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tagged the Turkish article as uncited in the hope that native speakers might find good sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep so far I’ve found 1, 2, 3 and 4. I can see plenty of discussions in other books and these in the development of the city of Ankara and its planned urbanisation, so notability is clear. Mccapra (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of newly found ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 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 Nomination withdrawn‎. Content issues being handled through the standard copyvio process. Star Mississippi 13:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as of now. Although it should stay if rewritten. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already is rewritten. GusGusBrus (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.
    Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "original expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.
    I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the original composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a process to follow WP:COPYVIO. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There's nothing wrong with an article having a history stricken out. I would question why this was brought up on AfD as @Andejons has also mentioned going through the process for copyright violations. There's where you would get the best advice on what to do next. – The Grid (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calum MacKay (footballer)

[edit]
Calum MacKay (footballer) (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)

Articles doesn't meet GNG. Should be deleted or draftified. No sigcov is available for this player who has appeared only in the lower Scottish leagues. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:39, 22 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 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offset time

[edit]
Offset time (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)

It's not a notable term. No citations for almost 20 years. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • leaning delete A GBook look reveals that the term is used a lot in technical discussion of OBS; that said, I don't think what the article says is true. OTOH the article on OBS is completely non-technical technobiz buzz-speak, and actual technical discussion is likely to need this term. At any rate I just don't see it needing its own page. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 22 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! 23:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Win-3 Habitat

[edit]
Win-3 Habitat (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)

Lacking sources or evidence of notability. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 22 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 13:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoma Ishigami

[edit]
Shoma Ishigami (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)

Lightyears away from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 88 minutes in Japan. Nothing usable in ja:wiki, either primary sources or short/insignificant Gekisaka sources. Geschichte (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per above, there doesn't seem to be WP:GNG. There was an article about him being picked up by Osaka University of Economics in 2020 and by December of 2020 he was listed as a sub-member.[16]The most recent thing I could find from him was a blog post he made in 2022 saying his career in football hasn't been a great success and with 2 years left in uni he had to make a choice whether to go pro or not, and considering nobody has heard from him since, I'm assuming he chose not. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:48, 22 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! 23:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taisei Isoe

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with 2 appearanced in Japan's third league. Every one of the sources in ja:wiki are primary, nothing usable, and hardly worth mentioning. Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 22 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 E & J Gallo Winery. If anyone wants to retrieve some content from the page history to merge into the target article, by all means do so. asilvering (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bev (company)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bev (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 NCORP; most of the coverage is devoted to the founder Alix Peaboy; the author was blocked for violating UPE policy Qivatari (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - The Forbes article is a staff and with the LA Times article that is two in depth sources. SunnyScion (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forbes and LA articles are not meeting NCORP as they are build around the founder Peabody and include lots of quotations. For instance, here is the LA so-called coverage based on citations:
  • Peabody aligned with charitable causes to help build community. “We set up an L.A. Service Workers Relief Fund and for one month donated 100% of our online sales to it,” she said. “We also encouraged the Bev community to donate to the initiative’s GoFundMe and matched the first $3,000 of donations. Bev’s sales grew 200% month over month during the pandemic.”
  • “Traditionally men buy wine in liquor stores while women buy wine in grocery stores,” she said. “Gallo is putting Bev at women’s fingertips she said.
  • In 2018 Alix Peabody, then 26 and an MFA student in screenwriting at USC, launched Bev canned wine company to pay off extensive medical bills. “I started with cans because it’s hard to create brand recognition around a bottled product,” she said. “Once you pour it into a glass, no one can tell what you’re drinking, but cans are essentially mini-billboards for the brand.”
  • “When lockdown hit, we had to get creative in order to reach our consumers at home,” she said. “We built a text-to-order platform in 48 hours, launched a new website designed for increased conversion and started running ads,” she said.

2600:1700:A850:10F0:48A2:10CA:EEBA:CE97 (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- They are detailing the early history of the company which is exactly what makes the article in depth. Interviews are a natural part of that research and she is properly attributing which facts came through an interview. Here is another forbes article and there is plenty in Wikipedia:Before to say Wikipedia:NEXIST. SunnyScion (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant E & J Gallo Winery. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 22 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 Mediterranean race. It's not mentioned at Historical race concepts, so Mediterranean race it is, since we've got equal support for both. asilvering (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian race

[edit]
Iberian race (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 article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus right now and we have two different suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This means I'm retracting my deletion request. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:23, 22 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. asilvering (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Paiaya

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ara Paiaya (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)

With persistent sockpuppetry and massive COI issues, I think it would be best to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has several news articles entirely about him in medium to large sized publishers [17], [18] so very clearly WP:NOTABLE, even if the article was originally made by an editor with a WP:COI. Current version of the article is very small and seems totally fine to expand upon, no WP:NPOV issues or the like - it seems unnecessary and against WP:NOTBURO to delete it in present form only to recreate (it's basically just a list of projects he's been involved with - barely stub-class). MolecularPilot 09:07, 23 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! 05:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Icewood

[edit]
Blade Icewood (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:MUSIC with no notable discography or label activity. The only material in the article is about his death and useless content about feuding rap groups, with no viable coverage of his own music. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 05:09, 22 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 11:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélien Lechevallier

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This article is almost entirely based on one primary source. A search for sources found routine coverage of ambassador activities but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 22 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1606)

[edit]
Battle of Dewair (1606) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mughal Conquest of Mewar was a series of millitary campaigns whereas Battle of Dewair is a single battle. I don't see any reason to merge it with the latter. WP: REDUNDANTFORK applies for the same topic with different name. However, In this case the battle is a part of strings of event(Mughal Conquest of Mewar) through which Mewar concluded a treaty. Hence neither it should be deleted nor it should be merged. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:26, 17 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, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I agree with Rawn3012. WP:REDUNDANTFORK states that's it is bad to have "two articles about the exact same thing" - but these are not the same thing, it's a battle within the larger conquest therefore the only thing that matter is if the battle itself is notable. Searches for name (Hindi: दिवेर का युद्ध) return a lot of results especially in Indian media, i.e. Dainik Bhaskar (4th in the world by circulation) made an article specifically about it interviewing academics [19] and there's a lot more as well meeting WP:SIGCOV. MolecularPilot 09:07, 23 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput wars

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Mughals and Rajputs not Marathas! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no need to keep this sock magnet as the material is already covered. A hard delete is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:12, 15 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, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 22 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! 01:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip C. Pfeiffer

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

Poorly referenced. Google doesn't turn up better sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:52, 22 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 Philip Morris International#Brands. and protect. I generally don't protect an article as part of an AFD but this is the clear consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longbeach (cigarette)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Longbeach (cigarette) (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)

Because last AfD was two+ years ago and the redirect is contested, bringing it back here to see if consensus has changed. If it hasn't, recommend protecting of the redirect. I see nothing that approaches N:ORG level of coverage. Star Mississippi 01:32, 22 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! 00:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dodd

[edit]
Sandra Dodd (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)

Sources are either to her own website or a blog. A Google News search brings up literally no coverage about her aside from one or two blogs. Seems to mostly just be promotional as well. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline G11, but definitely fails GNG Noah 💬 17:39, 27 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination and no Delete votes. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edyta Piasecka

[edit]
Edyta Piasecka (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)

Tagged for notability since 2018. Article is largely unreferenced which is not ok for a BLP article. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've added several sources. Enough to establish WP:SIGCOV. If anyone wants to continue with cleaning it up and making it read less like a resume that would be great.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 22 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! 00:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suad Abdi

[edit]
Suad Abdi (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)

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NPOL Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what about the Guardian reference? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 22 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.
  1. ^ Wells, H.G. The Outline of History New York:1920 Doubleday & Co. Volume I Chapter XI "The Races of Mankind" Pages 131–144 See Pages 98, 137, and 139