Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 26

< October 25 October 27 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Love the '90s (American TV series)

[edit]
I Love the '90s (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a set of articles on a TV show. Note that all of those have only one single reference--look at I Love the '90s: Part Deux, and you will find a little pop culture article that really only helps I Love.... The articles themselves are nothing but catalog info at best, all OR/trivia. One of the articles was created by a sock, User:Leviathan648, but I haven't checked them all. A redirect would be fine. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Pedersen, Erik (2004-07-12). "'I Love the '90s'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 384, no. 35. pp. 10, 12. ProQuest 2594762924.

      The review notes: "VH1's chop shop of pop culture is back and fresher than ever—because the decade they're focusing on ended less than half a decade ago. But fresher doesn't mean funnier; in fact, the forced feel of "I Love the '90s" suggests that nostalgia is a dish best served much colder. ... work against this 10-hour flashback series. Maybe it's just too soon for us to think back on the '90s as kitschy. ... While there are some good lines in the two episodes made available for review the years 1990 and '96 - the chuckle-to- groan ratio is simply far less than the '70s and '80s versions. In far too many cases, smartass remarks fall flat as a slap bracelet. There also seems to be an over-reliance on profanity in "I Love the '90s." The unfinished review tapes don't edit out the ample coarse language, but expect some big-time bleeping when this hits the air. It's as if many of the interviewees simply have nothing witty to add, so they say what they know will be edited out and pass it off as "edgy." It's not. The real stars of this show remain its technical staff. The clever music selections, visuals and backgrounds—including flying toasters and other creaky screen—pick up for the often-lackluster talking heads. [more discussion]"

    2. Johnson, Steve (2004-07-13). "VH1 finds no passion with 'I Love the '90s'". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 420247536. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The review notes: "Maybe it's too soon. Maybe the formula is petering out. Either way, VH1 doesn't capture the same pop-culture effervescence in the new "I Love the '90s" that it did in the versions paying raised-eyebrow homage to the previous two decades. It certainly feels too fresh to be mocking our predilections for "Pretty Woman" or MC Hammer. That's not funny. It's kind of painful. And it gets tiresome, at least to me, to hear an endless parade of celebrities you don't quite recognize making fun of or paying tribute to the decade's film/TV/music/trends, etc. It feels as if far more screen time is devoted to their reminiscences, most of them of not quite scripted quality, than to the culture itself."

    3. DiPasquale, Cara; Karnopp, Kris, eds. (2004-04-08). "VH1 loves the '90s". Chicago Tribune. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Proving once again that nostalgia needn’t be wasted on old things, VH1 is cranking up the next installment of its “I Love the …” franchise with “I Love the ’90s,” scheduled to debut this summer. “I Love the ’90s” will stick to the established format of offering a barrage of pop-cultural touchstones augmented by comments from comics, actors and celebrities who achieved fame in the decade."

    4. "VH1 Goes All the Way Back to the '90s". Multichannel News. 2004-06-17. Factiva MULTN00020040617e06h0005m.

      The article notes: "VH1’s 10-hour I Love the '90s will debut Monday, July 12 at9 p.m.and run through Friday, July 16. The network will look at the decade’s music, movies, TV shows, products, fashions, fads and major events, much as it did with previous programming events I Love the '70s, I Love the '80s and '80s Strikes Back. Each one-hour episode focuses on a single year. Celebrities who will appear throughout the week include Missy Elliott, John Mayer, Kyan Douglas, Coolio, Jason Mraz, Rachel Bilson, Lacey Chabert, Blair Underwood, Jerry Springer, Usher, Venus Williams, Trey Parker, Kevin Smith, Bob Guiney, Maroon 5, Warren Moon, Dominic Monaghan, Peri Gilpin, Shelley Morrison, Sarah McLachlan, Jordan Knight, Kato Kaelin, Lance Bass, Jaleel White, Ian Ziering, Susan Powter, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Wilson Phillips, Joe E. Tata, Wilson Phillips, Spin Doctors, Gabrielle Carteris, Mo Rocca, Michael Ian Black, Hal Sparks, Rich Eisen, Loni Love, Rachael Harris, Godfrey, Beth Littleford and Luis Guzman. "

    5. Shen, Maxine (2004-07-11). "I Love the '90's - Kurt Cobain, Kato Kaelin, and Kevorkian - Looking back on a Killer Decade". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      According to WP:NYPOST, "A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage". The article contains quotes from people affiliated with the show, The article notes: "... the music channel is taking on the decade that spawned the dancing baby and flying toaster screen saver "I Love the 90s." ... A variety of comedians, musicians, actors and blast-from-the-past faces have been tapped to reminisce on topics as diverse as Crystal Pepsi, Ace of Base, the grunge music movement, "Bev-erly Hills 90210" and other distinctly 90s moments. ... The 90s also ushered in the age of information overload. One field in particular - music - saw an alarming crush of performers. ... Each hour-long episode of "I Love the 90s" highlights the most noteworthy and notorious events from a given year. In the 1990 episode, the films "Ghost" and "Dances With Wolves," the TV series "In Living Color," and euthanasia activist Dr. Jack Kevorkian are a few of the topics tackled by commentators such as Sparks, musicians Maroon 5 and J.C. Chasez, actress Rachel Bilson of The O.C." and the decades cheesiest house guest, Kato Kaelin."

    6. Smith, Austin (2004-07-12). "We're Not Worthy of '90s 'Love'". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      According to WP:NYPOST, "A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage". The review gives I Love the '90s 2.5 stars. The review notes: "For me, it's that running commentary that makes or breaks these decade specials. And since I have a low tolerance for sarcasm, the reactions of people such as Michael Ian Black (of the cancelled NBC series "Ed") or Kato Kaelin (of the O.J. Simpson murder trial) to the rivalry between MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice (1990) or "Wayne's World" (1992) are of no interest whatsoever. ... It's possible that Rocca (he's the guy from "The Daily Show" with the Peter Brady haircut) recaptures the title in later episodes of "I Love the '90s," but in the episode VH1 provided for preview - Episode 1, "1990" - Sparks is seen and heard about a dozen times too many. His dominance is not easy to understand because it's clear the producers of VH1's "'90s" series taped interviews with dozens of different people - from Missy Elliott and Jaleel White (Urkel from "Family Matters") to Kyan Douglas ("Queer Eye for the Straight Guy") and Hulk Hogan. When "I Love the '90s" takes advantage of the wide variety of viewpoints represented by its many interview subjects, the commentary is much easier to take."

    7. Fonseca, Nicholas (2004-07-09). "VH1 show takes us all the way back to the 90s. VH1 show takes us all the way back to the 90s -- I Love the 90s will bring back all our favorites like Nirvana, Crystal Pepsi, and Doc Martens". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-08-10. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Clinton’s spilling! O.J.’S yapping! And we so have an intense urge to throw on some Doc Martens, guzzle Crystal Pepsi, and crank up the Gin Blossoms! Suddenly a bunch of late-20th-century news makers are back in the spotlight, portending the official arrival of ’90s nostalgia."

    8. Kronke, David (2004-07-11). "The Daily News Watch-O-Rama - The Highlights and Lowlights of the Upcoming Week in tv". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The review notes: "Think: The detritus of yet another decade is resurrected then further laid to waste by Hal Sparks, Michael Ian Black and whoever they could lure into the studio with a cheese log. Don't think: This is how they'll teach history to kids in the future: Black in I Love the 1860s: 'Here's why they had to have the Civil War over the Emancipation Proclamation — no one in the South knew what those words meant!' In a nutshell: Like the previous series, a genially amusing time-killer, as sundry follies such as Vanilla Ice, "Ghost," O.J. Simpson, the lambada, Michael Bolton and so on are mildly and occasionally wittily eviscerated."

    9. Morrow, Terry (2004-07-11). "VH1 flips through time again for look at the '90s". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "In its weeklong special, "I Love the '90s" (airing at 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, July 12-16), the channel looks back at those wild and kooky days when flannel shirts, O.J. Simpson and rollerblades were the hallmarks of pop culture. The 10-part series, which is broken up into two hours each night, will glide through the good, the bad and the phat of the era. Movies ("Titanic"), music (like grunge) and television ("Beverly Hills 90210") will be examined year by year. This was the time when hip-hop and rap became music institutions, the Atkins Diet was the latest weight-loss fad and Kathie Lee Gifford was the brunt of punch lines. And just like the channel's specials on the 1970s and 1980s, comedians will offer their own perspective into the decade. Of the Waco, Texas, disaster, Mo Rocca deadpans, "David Koresh is probably not the Messiah. If he is, the FBI really screwed up." On cloning a sheep, Michael Ian Black offers, "I had trouble telling one sheep apart from another before cloning so, for me, it was not a huge technological leap.""

    10. "VH1 Loves the 90s". Multichannel News. 2004-07-16. Factiva MULTN00020040716e07g000b5.

      The article notes: "The first eight episodes of VH1’s 10-part I Love the 90s series have averaged a 1.1 Nielsen Media Research rating in the 18-49 demo, the network said Friday. VH1 added that an average of 1.6 million viewers have tuned in each night, tripling its 2003 primetime tally. The network is on pace to record its highest-rated week of 2004."

    11. Sparks, Abbie (2004-07-21). "90's Hot for VH1". Broadcasting & Cable. Factiva BDCTCA0020040721e07l000p2.

      The article notes: "Prime-time viewers must have fond memories of the 1990s, or at least some interest in reliving those bygone days. VH1 achieved its highest prime time rating in five years when it aired I Love the 90s, making last week its most watched week ever in prime time and total day. An average of 845,000 viewers tuned in throughout the week, up 156% compared to the same week in 2003. The prime time numbers for the 18-49 group was .8, a up 167% from 2003. An average of 1.2 million viewers watched VH1 during prime time."

    12. "Nielsens Love VH1's '90s'". Multichannel News. Vol. 25, no. 30. 2004-07-26. Factiva MULTN00020040728e07q0000x.

      The article notes: "While criticized in some quarters for not letting enough time elapse on the decade, scored big with viewers with the recent premieres of its I Love the ’90s specials, as the network turned in its highest-rated week among adults 18 to 49 in five years. The 10 specials, which aired for two hours each night from July 12 through July 16 (one hour for each year in the decade) averaged a 1.0 against that demo overall, with five of the shows surpassing that mark. The ’90s specials topped their I Love the ’80s predecessors by 10%, according to network officials. VH1 notched a 0.8 average against its target demo the week of July 12 to July 18, a 167% jump compared to the same week in 2003 and equaling the average the network posted with its “Divas Week” in 1999. An average of 845,000 of those watchers tuned into the network that week, as did 1.2 million viewers 2-plus, 125% more than in the comparable 2003 span."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow I Love the '90s to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources presented indicate a degree of coverage, but more discussion is needed to establish a consensus on the significance of that coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems like enough independent coverage to me, per above. Takipoint123 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As seen by multiple users participating in this discussion, there are many references and enough coverage.( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 15:19, 28 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. A persuasive analysis of the sources presented, showing that they do not reach the degree of coverage required by WP:GNG, has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 09:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur

[edit]
Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur (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 only independent reliable sources found in English or Bengali are brief mentions in lists (e.g. [1]). They do not contain the significant coverage required to justify a stand alone article. Was earlier redirected to the surrounding community, Rangpur Cantonment, where the school is mentioned, but the redirect was removed by an editor who appears very familiar with the school outside of what published sources say. Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initially it was a independent article but later someone removed all texts and redirected to Rangpur Cantonment.
Then I rescued this article. It’s a famous school in northern Bangladesh.
unfortunately i didn’t add any reference.
Now I’ve added some references, it’s not an easy task to get newslink for a school.
There is also articles about this school in other languages.
I’m requesting not to delete this article. Cerium4B (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you've added — the school's website, two copies of a press release, another promotional piece with no byline, a blank page at the District Education Office, and a job posting — lack independence from the school and so do not demonstrate notability (which is not the same as being famous). Also, most of them fail to support the content (see citing sources for more information). That it is not an easy task to get sources for this school is a sign that it is not notable.
That two other language versions of Wikipedia have an article about the school is not relevant to this discussion. Just because an article exists, doesn't mean it should exist, and each language version operates under its own policies and guidelines, decided by the editors who edit there, so even if an article should exist in one language that doesn't mean it should exist in another. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/country-news/2024/06/03/1394068
Worldbruce
Check this news; it’s in Bengali. Please translate it.
I’m requesting you not to delete this article- Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur. It’s very hard to find news about a school. Cerium4B (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Non of the sources seem like anything but fluff pieces. The sources that aren't their own site or government data seem to be small local papers. Honestly, too many schools probably have a wiki page and should be removed.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 18:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kaler Kantho just a small local newspaper? 😂
Honestly, I believe Wikipedia should restrict foreigners from editing articles related to other countries. Cerium4B (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by this, Cerium4B? We are all anonymous, so I'm not sure who you are referring to by labeling editors "foreigners". Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz
Actually i am talking about @Speederzzz.
He is from Netherland.
He said that Kaler Kantho is a small local newspaper but it is a National newspaper in Bangladesh. Cerium4B (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce
Check these references related to Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur from reputed newspapers of Bangladesh (including The Daily Star, Prothom Alo)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Cerium4B (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you do not seem to get what is and isn't Significant coverage, I will show you how your sources are/aren't applicable. If you want some more examples, WP:SIRS has some.
[16] Not significant, only 4 pictures.
[17] Not significant, 1 sentence in an extremely short list.
[18] 404 error
[19] Not significant, 1 sentence in an extremely short list.
[20] No direct discussion of topic, only passing mention that the 3rd place in an essay writing competition went to that school.
[21] Not significant, only passing mention in this artist's life. (The title wasn't even correct, the original title doesn't even mention the school)
[22] 404 error, I cannot be sure but the lack of capital letter makes me think this title was changed from it's real title too.
[23] Not significant, short announcement that they are the highest scoring school in the region that year.
[24] No direct discussion of topic, only short mention that one of the participants went to the school.
[25] No direct discussion of topic, only states students came from the school. Title was also changed, instead first sentence was used.
[26] Not significant, very short mention in a very short letter.
[27] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of school results.
[28] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of schools.
[29] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of schools. Title was changed in a weird way.
[30] Not significant, only one small mention in a list of schools. Title was also weirdly changed.
As you can see non of these sources are usable under the rules of significant coverage. If someone so fervent to keep the page can't even find significant coverage, I don't think anyone is going to find it.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm female. Second, I said seem because the style does not seem very "national news-y". Some of these sources mention a lot of these schools in a list and not talk about the school in specific or the school is mentioned in passing only. If you want I can look at all your sources and show you which ones are and are not indicative of significant coverage, but one of them is just four pictures, so I feel like you might not fully understand the policies on significant coverage.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 09:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, checked the news in bengali,Well-known government owned educational institution. can be improved in the text body of the article. UzbukUdash (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to maybe instead merge back into/expand on (since it's already mentioned) in the Rangpur Cantonment? The page needs quite an overhaul in sources for now at least. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 14:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing secondary coverage. SirMemeGod  17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Rangpur Cantonment Public School". NTV. 2017.
  2. ^ "Cantonment Public Schools and Colleges Are at the Top Again in Rangpur". Barta24. 2023.
  3. ^ "Four Schools from Rangpur in the Top Ten". Prothom Alo. 2014.
  4. ^ "Top Educational Institutions in Rangpur". Prothom Alo. 2015.
  5. ^ "Bronze Medal Won". Prothom Alo. 2018.
  6. ^ "Weaving Dreams ex student of Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur". Prothom Alo. 2019.
  7. ^ "teacher of Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur making the opening of Bangladesh math Olympiad". Prothom Alo. 2015.
  8. ^ "Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur best in Rangpur division". The Daily Star. 2011.
  9. ^ "Youngsters Showcasing Their Skills". The Daily Star. 2024.
  10. ^ "Students of Rangpur Cantonment Public School and College blocked Rangpur-Dinajpur highway". The Daily Star. 2020.
  11. ^ "To the Prime Minister from Rangpur". The Daily Star. 2011.
  12. ^ "result summary". The Daily Star. 2008.
  13. ^ "HSC results". The Daily Star. 2013.
  14. ^ "top college of city". The Daily Star. 2009.
  15. ^ "stood second in Dinajpur board". The Daily Star. 2009.
  16. ^ "Rangpur Cantonment Public School". NTV. 2017.
  17. ^ "Cantonment Public Schools and Colleges Are at the Top Again in Rangpur". Barta24. 2023.
  18. ^ "Four Schools from Rangpur in the Top Ten". Prothom Alo. 2014.
  19. ^ "Top Educational Institutions in Rangpur". Prothom Alo. 2015.
  20. ^ "Bronze Medal Won". Prothom Alo. 2018.
  21. ^ "Weaving Dreams". Prothom Alo. 2019.
  22. ^ "teacher of Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur making the opening of Bangladesh math Olympiad". Prothom Alo. 2015.
  23. ^ "Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur best in Rangpur division". The Daily Star. 2011.
  24. ^ "Youngsters Showcasing Their Skills". The Daily Star. 2024.
  25. ^ "Roadblock in Rangpur". The Daily Star. 2020.
  26. ^ "To the Prime Minister from Rangpur". The Daily Star. 2011.
  27. ^ "result summary". The Daily Star. 2008.
  28. ^ "HSC results". The Daily Star. 2013.
  29. ^ "Nine out of top 10 colleges from city". The Daily Star. 2009.
  30. ^ "Dinajpur board 2nd largest GPA-5 achievers". The Daily Star. 2009.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The initial review of the sources presented appears to indicate the subject is not notable, but a relist feels appropriate to gain a clearer concensus on this one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Lamar Lady Cardinals softball team

[edit]
2023 Lamar Lady 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/poor 22–34 record, won no championships and did not advance to the playoffs or 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) 00:07, 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! 23:22, 26 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 Maltese FA Trophy. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1938–39 Maltese FA Trophy

[edit]
1938–39 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:16, 26 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 Maltese FA Trophy. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1937–38 Maltese FA Trophy

[edit]
1937–38 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:15, 26 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) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Walker Hair Typing System

[edit]
Andre Walker Hair Typing System (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)

Most of the sources are bad:

  • "Curlcentric" - looks to just be mostly trying to sell you something
  • "Women Health Info Blog" - is, well, a blog, one that looks to be by a "Prof. Dr. Gayane Dolyan Descornet" and seems to check out( maybe they deserve their own article? I see this so they've been around for a while) but is still basically just a self-published blog.(from my understanding we wouldn't cite a totally self published blog by Neil Degrasse Tyson on astromy related stuff afterall)
  • Oprah.com - Yea totally not a problematic source to have your boss promote your system
  • studio2121 - 404'd, but is regardless just literally an actual hair salon

this leaves the two podcasts and probably the strongest sources for the existence of this article being 99% Invisible and "The Stoop", haven't heard of the latter before, but it looks like something that could probably get its own article but just hasn't if it's press and awards page is to be believed

Anyway I'm basically arguing that everything but these two podcasts are bad sources, that leads into a bit of a more nebulous issue, that being that the system is basically considered bunk (yes, I know that a Reddit thread isn't the greatest of evidence, but I honestly don't know that much about this subject) or at least highly divisive on technical grounds (also supposedly racial grounds, but I don't really see it), and I only dived into this rabbithole because I saw this classification chart on the Hair article, and it just seemed so.....unscientific? I'm not sure, but I feel like this only exists as a page because someone attached to someone famous came up with it.

If this is successfully deleted, I'd also call for the nuking of Hair#Classification_systems for similar grounds, because unlike the main article that section isn't cited at all and neither is whatever the "FIA" system is. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: Note for other editors, the nominator seems to be mass nominating articles for deletion after being temporarily blocked and then warned of a permanent block for disruptive editing (see their talk page). I will assume good faith that they are learning the rules.
Comment 2:I wrote the article after listening to the 99% Invisible episode, I'll work on adding more references to resolve the issue, please give me a few days to do this before adding your feedback as once I add the additional refs your comments will be out of date. Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @John Cummings, I see that you have added more references, but they don't seem to me to be very reliable ones, as well as addressing the issues I brought up with the prior references used. Though yes I'm a newer editor so a second opinion on the reliability of the current references might be warranted, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this regard. Hopefully you can address those in your next edit to the page. Akaibu (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are reliable sources: Conde Nast's Allure (magazine), Byrdie (part of Dotdash Meredith), and Hairdressers Journal[2] (from Professional Beauty Group) seems a fairly major trade publication. Plus there are research papers. And WP:BIAS: articles primarily relevant to black women suffer due to lack of interest from WP editors, uncertainty about what's a reliable source, etc, as well as prejudice that such topics are unencyclopedic/trivial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was done before this nomination. In addition to sources already in the article (including the ones added today or yesterday), here are some others that come up even in a brief Google search:
So it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, added them :) John Cummings (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus here. An additional review of newly added or located sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added a large number of reliable sources since this initial listing which resolves the issue with sourcing. The original nominator also linked to a reddit discussion, which I will ignore since its not within the scope of a Wikipedia deletion discussion. John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userify‎. Julia, I'll move this to your own userspace, where your classmates can collaborate on it without other editors jumping in for now. asilvering (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean

[edit]
History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. Seems to be promoting a scholarly database and no independent sources turned up by a before search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Latin America, and Caribbean. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is part of a class assignment. It is still in progress, so please don't delete. JuliaerodriguezUNH (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, tell your professor that your grade should not depend upon whether or not you successfully write a Wikipedia article that avoids deletion, because that is out of your control. Second, anything moved out of draft space into the realm of articles is fair game for a deletion debate. Third, if no reliable sources talk about this database, then we can't have an article about it here. Fourth, you've basically copied the original website. For example, it says a virtual archive of over 200 primary sources along with introductions based on the latest scholarly findings, while you wrote a virtual archive containing over 200 primary documents, each accompanied by introductions informed by the latest scholarly research. It says, We hope the database will be useful for teaching, research, or general interest purposes for viewers curious about the history of science. You wrote, This resource is designed to support teaching, research, and general interest, catering to those eager to explore the region's scientific history. It says, For centuries, novelists, politicians, investors, and tourists have looked at Latin America and the Caribbean as an extraordinary place of natural wealth and diverse human populations. You wrote, For centuries, Latin America and the Caribbean have been viewed as regions of natural wealth and diverse populations, attracting explorers and scientists. To be blunt, this is plagiarism by close copying. That's bad. Very bad. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you may have guessed, this is my first time doing Wiki anything. My intent was to make the article accessible for my classmates to edit - I did not realize that it went public into a space outside of our class group for the public to view. As such, I have deleted all text..
    Obviously that is on me, chalk this up to a learning experience.
    I requested to move it back to the draft space and I was not allowed to. Is that, is that because it is pending deletion or user error on my part? I just want to know whether to make edits to this draft or begin a new page.
    Thanks for the criticism/help. Traviscnason (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving an article while a deletion discussion is open is generally frowned upon, just because it confuses the situation. If you want to make further edits, you can do those on the article where it is now. I advise two things: start by listing the references that aren't the database itself, and put more work into writing in your own words. The first is necessary because we need references like that to show that the topic merits an article, and the second is necessary to avoid copyright problems. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, so that whatever text is needed for the class assignment can be readded without harm. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as draft, Interested to know about the title UzbukUdash (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lamar Lady Cardinals softball team

[edit]
2024 Lamar Lady 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 26–25 record, won no championships and did not advance to the playoffs or 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) 23:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:10, 26 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. Nomination withdrawn (ironically there was an edit conflict as I was closing it at the same time). Editors interested in Merging content can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cookiemonster attack

[edit]
Cookiemonster attack (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)

Standalone vulnerabilities are rarely notable on their own. While this particular vulnerability boasts of a impressive list of "affected parties", to me it just seems to be a misconfiguration/quirk of the HTTPS protocol (of which there a fair few) that then got discussed on BugTraQ and then later demoed at DEFCON.

Coming to the notability, while there is coverage from The Register and Information Week during 2008 and 2009, I don't think the vulnerability has recieved sustained coverage since. As such, I think it has failed the 10 year test and isn't notable for inclusion. (Also cc @Utopes since this is a contested BLAR) Sohom (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DigitalIceAge Encoded  Talk 💬 20:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Per above, withdrawing this AFD, I still think that a merge is appropriate, however, we can discuss that possibility off AFD. Sohom (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Harry Welter

[edit]
Death of Harry Welter (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)

Tragic event with routine short-term coverage. Does not meet the notability guideline on events. Sam Sailor 22:19, 26 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! 01:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gibbs (darts player)

[edit]
Paul Gibbs (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)

Old, poorly referenced article. Couldn't find anything on a WP:BEFORE. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:23, 28 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! 22:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Ross (darts player)

[edit]
Angus Ross (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. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will have coverage in Scottish newspapers. Competed foryears at the top level of his sport, even if he wasn't successful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there are sources in Scotland, then at least one containing IRS SIGCOV must be added to the article for this to be kept. Vaguewaving at sources is not a valid option. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have referenced a number of sources below from searching the Google Newspapers archive. In response to your staterment that they must be added to the article for this to be kept I think WP:NEXIST gives a different impression, particularly Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. I do not take this to mean that the sources should be currently in the article for us to vote Keep, since the sources do exist. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently located sources would be helpful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 26 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! 22:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MeJew movement

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

Another AI-generated hoax by User:Jeaucques Quœure. #MeJew was a Sundance Film Festival panel and does not appear to be an actual movement or awareness campaign. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a hoax! https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/2023-sundance-film-festival-announce-beyond-film-conversations/ https://www.indiewire.com/news/festivals/israel-representation-panel-palestinian-protest-sundance-same-time-1234944791/ https://jewinthecity.com/2023/01/jew-in-the-city-hosts-historic-panel-at-sundance-film-festival/ etc. (Jew in the City is another possible target for this in case it is redirected) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources all support what I wrote - #MeJew was a Sundance Film Festival panel and does not appear to be an actual movement or awareness campaign. Flounder fillet (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But you claimed it was a hoax and my! vote is for a merge. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"#MeJew" exists, the "#MeJew movement" does not, and everything in this article other than the sentence At the 2023 Sundance Film Festival, a panel discussed how Jewish characters are often depicted through stereotypical or inauthentic lenses. is false. This is a hoax. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Wording, even (or rather mostly) the title of the article, and statements may need rework, cleanup etc (or the page needs a redirect to its original context, as my !vote suggests) but this is not what is generally called a hoax. The word is misleading. Hoax is CSD territory, this is not, as existing coverage shows.
"#MeJew"=a response to the underrepresentation and misrepresentation of Jews in Hollywood and media. It focuses on fighting antisemitic tropes, ensuring accurate portrayals of Jewish identity, and addressing the exclusion of Jewish voices from their own stories" is NOT false.
It calls for Jews, especially observant ones, to be authentically represented in film and television rather than being portrayed through external perspectives that reinforce harmful clichés, such as controlling, greedy, or unattractive personas." is NOT false.
It "criticizes casting practices where non-Jewish actors are chosen to play Jewish characters, overlooking the depth of Jewish experience, culture, and identity. An example raised during the discussion was Helen Mirren being cast to play Golda Meir, which sparked conversations about authenticity and cultural sensitivity in Hollywood." is NOT false.
See sources.
So basically remove the word "movement" and change it for the panel/participants/whatever you deem right and everything is sourced and correct. Calling it a hoax is therefore very exaggerated and misleading in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between a panel and a "movement" is very wide. Having an article on a single panel discussion is giving undue weight to a minor one-time event. Calling it a movement is absolutely a hoax. Toughpigs (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my !vote is for a merge so that I partially agree with that. But, again, I disagree on ’absolutely a hoax’. Any panel who launches such a hashtag probably hopes it will end in a movement so that, although it is not an actual movement and the gap may be wide, it is not as if someone was trying to make us believe something totally untrue and that we cannot easily check and correct accordingly. Most of what is on the page is true and sourced, I have no further comments. If anyone wants to make a point and truly believes it’s indeed technically a hoax, nominate for CSD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably hopes it will end in a movement so that, although it is not an actual movement and the gap may be wide, it is not as if someone was trying to make us believe something totally untrue
That's exactly what it means! Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 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 delete‎. I'm choosing to Delete this on the basis of claims that there is no event held in 2025. If that changes, feel free to revisit this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Women's Futsal Euro 2025

[edit]
UEFA Women's Futsal Euro 2025 (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 term "UEFA Women's Futsal Euro 2025" was never officially used to designate the qualifiers, so the page should be deleted. Redirecting it could cause confusion, as it might imply that the 2025 edition refers to the qualifiers, which is incorrect.

Therefore, I believe the page redirect should be deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vels FC

[edit]
Vels FC (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, shows no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:20, 26 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! 22:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SugarGh0st RAT

[edit]
SugarGh0st RAT (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. All the references are not reliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have added more references Arwenz (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:13, 19 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! 19:07, 26 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. This is an unsatisfactory discussion. People merely assert that the subject is or is not notable, or refer to WP:POLITICIAN which clearly does not apply to party offices. All of this is beside the point. The only relevant arguments are those discussing reliable independent sources that cover the subject in depth, as required per WP:GNG. But almost nobody here attempted to do so. We have one dump of hyperlinks, but they remained undiscussed and appear to be of questionable value. This needs a new discussion focused on the sources. Sandstein 09:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG Pass , has reliable sources, she is a national level women leader - Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a youth movement of a single party in a state but exists in more than one state [17][18] . Spworld2 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

, [22] (Malayala Manorama). A article who is popular in Kerala as a Muslim woman has won the award. Also a well-known Muslim feminist in Kerala [23] [24][25]. She can be considered as an Advocate/Lawyer, she is one of the women lawyers in Kerala High Court [26] Office holder at Municipality / Taluk level [27] Reference [28] , [29] (The Hindu) and she can be considered Women in positions of power [30] [31] Influencer (Muslim women political influencer) in Kerala [32] [33] - Spworld2 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 26 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 Maritime pilot. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. If sources turn up, of course, the decision may be reversed. Many thanks Clarityfiend for Pilot Major of Spain. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot major

[edit]
Pilot major (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 stub has remained unsourced since 2013 and has remained a WP:DICDEF. A Google Books search finds several works that mention that such and such person was a "pilot-major" of an early modern European trade or exploration fleet, but no work defining or describing this title or occupation, which means that there is no basis for an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources and additional info added. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I still don't see the basis for an article here. The lead sentences, which purport to define the topic, remain unsourced: "A pilot major or pilot-major is a chief navigator of a ship or fleet. This person is usually experienced in naval exploration and has distinguished himself as both a sailor and a voyager." What you did find a source for was the use of the same term in Spain for something different, namely, a government office with responsibility for cartography. What we now have is a list of people with a position we cannot define, and a description of an unrelated government office. That's not an article. Sandstein 13:57, 20 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) 18:29, 26 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! 22:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasta Faruq Kanarwey

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

BLP of a Kurdish veteran, largely unsourced, lacking any clear indication of notability and based on related sources. Kurdish speakers may be able to find better sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 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! 22:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perky Little Things

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

There is no significant coverage from reliable sources for this game. Wombat Trap is a blog. Nintenderos, Nintendo Insider, and GoNintendo are unreliable sources reporting (mostly republishing) on the game's release. TheVideoGameLibrary and Kotaku entries are database sources that do not amount to significant coverage. The PlayAsia article is a primary press release. QuietCicada chirp 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page creator had been creating pages dedicated to video games with explicit content that did not demonstrate notability on their own. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Delete I have created many game articles and this was probably the only one where I had significant doubt. Still, I went for it at the end, perhaps with the thought that more sources could come in the future. But you're right, it's a lost cause so yes it can be deleted. Sceeegt (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This game doesn't have independent reliable sources for WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:08, 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 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! 22:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Venture Partners

[edit]
Newark Venture Partners (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 is basically nothing but advertising copy and will need to be line-by-line rewritten if it is to be retained. Additionally, leaving aside press releases, I can find very little coverage of it in anything that could be called a reliable source. It gets passing mentions in articles about the NJ venture capital sector and reports on funding rounds in which it has participated, but actual focused coverage is very thin on the ground. Where it does exist, it tends to be puff pieces (often more about one of its partners than about the company itself (Example 1, Example 2)) or just short rephrasing of press releases by industry sites (E1, E2). These six links, by the way, constitute almost everything I could find on Google News about this company.

So from a combo of WP:TNT and dubious notability, I suggest deletion. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:57, 26 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! 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Mealey

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Natasha Mealey (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 evidence of WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 17:56, 26 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) 17:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Zhakov

[edit]
Valery Zhakov (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)

Retired Russian actor. WP:NACTOR significance is shown. The article was removed from Russian Wikipedia [34].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:54, 26 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 Valery Leontiev. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Leaf (album)

[edit]
Maple Leaf (album) (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 demonstrate the significance of the album. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:34, 26 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fitz

[edit]
Peter Fitz (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 significance was found for WP:NACTOR in the article.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:28, 26 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 Valery Leontiev. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Forget Me

[edit]
Do Not Forget Me (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 demonstrate the significance of the song. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev. --Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:33, 26 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 University of Lucknow. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National P.G. College

[edit]
National P.G. 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)

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. I propose redirecting to University of Lucknow per WP:ATD, as the article fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:06, 26 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! 22:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TVJ Singing Queens

[edit]
TVJ Singing Queens (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'm doubtful in this article, it is lack of references fails in WP:BANDMEMBER, citing a unreliable sources fails in WP:RS. Royiswariii Talk! 15:05, 26 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 Somali literature without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Corpus

[edit]
Somali Corpus (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 secondary source given for notability. A WP:BEFORE on Google Scholar gives this article that uses the corpus and gives a description of it. Otherwise, I can only find a passing mention and this article, which uses the corpus but doesn't go in-depth about it. It doesn't look like WP:GNG is met, although I am open to changing my mind if more sources come to light.

Noting that the original author has declared a COI with the subject. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty rudimentary stub. Now, a number of sources have been added that discuss the importance of such corpora of under-resourced languages, and of Somali resources in particular. Links have been added to this page. The lead has also been cleaned up to clarify what a corpus is and where Somali is spoken. LingLass (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The issue wasn't about the lack of information or context in the lead, or about whether such corpora are important. To meet WP:GNG, sources should go in-depth about this specific corpus in particular, not about corpora in general. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a better solution would be to move this to a page about Somali corpora in general, rather than focusing on this corpus in particular. I feel like there are now a number of other corpora for this language that together have some deeper coverage in the literature.LingLass (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could indeed work! |Chaotic Enby]] (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LingLass and Chaotic Enby, if you believe this article should be Merged or Redirected, please state that and provide a target article. Otherwise, this discussion is likely to close as a Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with LingLass about changing the scope of this page to Somali corpora in general as an alternative to deletion, which would be most likely to meet WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a suitable Merge or Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - would a redirect and selective merge to Somali literature work as an ATD? JMWt (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vote for the page to be moved to Somali Corpora. Because the set of corpora include sources from literature, newspapers, and, speech and web material. So Somali Literature is too narrow. And there are now a number of sources discussing and comparing recent corpora made from materials in this language. That would make the existing page just one of the components included.LingLass (talk) 04:37, 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 redirect‎ to University of Lucknow. ✗plicit 13:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Navyug Kanya Mahavidyalaya (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)

Reverted redirect. A WP:BEFORE search reveals sources about the University of Lucknow. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:21, 26 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 13:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Sotomayor

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

No claim to notability; I redirected this to RuPaul's Drag Race season 1 but was reverted. Seeking wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Illinois. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. I appreciate User:MiitomoChris's attempt to expand this article about one of the few RuPaul's Drag Race contestants without a Wikipedia biography. I have expanded the article significantly based on simple online searches, and I can tell there is much more to add. As someone who has promoted several bios about Drag Race contestants to Good article status, I am satisfied with the amount of secondary coverage received and believe eligibility criteria are met. There's coverage spanning over a decade in a variety of publications, including multiple articles specifically focused on the subject. I see details about the subject's acting/entertainment work both in and out of drag, not to mention many updates about their drag career and impact as a season 1 contestant within a tremendously successful television franchise. The current article has just a couple sentences about her time on Drag Race. This entry needs expanding, not deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well expand it then. As it stands there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that this person is worth more than a line in the relevant Drag Race article. If there is one thing I loathe it is people who slap together stublets and claim on no evidence at all that the subject is notable. Walk the walk, please.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article has been improved to the point where it looks fine per GNG and seems expandable as well.
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 03:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The many sources including popular news publications helped establish credibility. Urchincrawler (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics

[edit]
Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics (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)

Page created by a new editor which was accepted at AfC in good faith by a reviewer who it appears does not have an extensive background in the science area. Following a brief discussion on the talk page, there are Toosoon, Notability, OR, NPOV and Dubious issues. Some more information added to AfD page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Curtesy ping of @Johnjbarton, RangersRus, Jähmefyysikko, ReyHahn, and Cadaik:. As nominator I think there are multiple issues:

  1. WP:TOOSOON, the article is based upon a 2023 paper and a 2024 paper, where the 2024 paper is the only one that cites the 2023 paper.
  2. WP:N general lack of other sources to indicate that the neolism is notable.
  3. WP:OR large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor.
  4. WP:NPOV page suggests that the approach is only relevant for low speeds, but fails to mention other issues. To quote from the abstract of the first source "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." These hidden claims go far beyond what the text reveals.
  5. WP:DUBIOUS without being specific, the article models diffraction from an edge and two slits without stating that it is giving a new, unsourced interpretation of the classic wave–particle duality. This is stated more clearly at the end of the open source code referenced in the page " It is plausible to assume that such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects. For more on this topic, see https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23055584.v2". Wikipedia is not the place for such hidden claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: Please remain objective. It is not relevant what you personally believes. There are convincing, comprehensible and unconcealed facts, evidence and simulation results.
I would now like to address the various points:
  1. WP:TOOSOON / WP:N: The two aspects are connected and cannot be denied. I have read the guidelines and it is true that it is too early for a self-standing article. I therefore suggest a merge into Weber electrodynamics.
  2. WP:NPOV "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." The citation is from the abstract of one of the cited articles, which was published in a scientific journal and was apparently considered appropriate by the reviewers and the editors. This text cannot be found in the Wikipedia article. Where is neutrality violated when a source is cited?
  3. WP:OR: "large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor." This should be explained in more detail.
  4. WP:DUBIOUS: Your raised objections do not refer to the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia page shows examples of interference and diffraction from a classical point of view, where an electromagnetic wave is emitted by a dipole antenna and then reflected by a barrier of secondary dipoles. This is a common model. The source code is publicly available and cited. The preprint which you mention is not cited on the Wikipedia page and can be found only at the very end on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME. The preprint is there only linked as an interesting side note. Specifically, the website says "... this example exceeds the usual field of application of electrical engineering considerably. It is an interesting by-product which arose during the development ..." The vast majority of the examples on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME verify the predictions of Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics by means of known classical effects. This ensures that not only the theoretical derivation is correct (this is performed by mathematical proofs), but also that the practical results are convincing.
Cadaik (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this page is about a couple of 2023/2024 papers which are barely cited, this is far from being WP:NOTABLE and indicates WP:RECENTISM or at least WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. No review article on the topics exists for the moment. I would suggest not merging with Weber electrodynamics as the topics seems to be unrelated and Weber–Maxwelll electrodynamics is not used in the literature to refer to Weber electrodynamics.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We have many, many instances where a newish peer-reviewed primary source is cited in support of one aspect of a notable topic. However in such cases the amount and breadth of the content needs to be in proportion to the impact of the source which in this case is very limited. The actual impact is the only thing that matters, not the potential, truthfulness, wonderfulness etc. I don't think this topic is bogus though a brief look at the cited authors other work leads me to think they have limited background outside of computational EM. Therefore I don't expect this topic to grow into something significant. In any case I would encourage @Cadaik to contribute to existing articles with more focus on reviews and secondary sources to get a feel for Wikipedia-ness. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the total lack of viable sources upon which an encyclopedia article could be built. None of the content is worth merging, for the same reason. Magnetism is an MDPI journal, meaning that it has no value. (Likewise, though of less importance here, the translations of historical sources are published by "Apeiron Montreal", a book imprint associated with a now-defunct fringe journal.) And to be polite, any claim like such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects faces a very steep hill to climb before it can be taken remotely seriously.XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    XOR'easter I was not able to find your quote "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" in the article. As far as I can tell this is quote from Ldm1954 referring to a source which is also not cited by the article. I don't think it is fair to discredit the article on the basis of a blog post not cited or discussed in the article and on a topic unrelated to the article. The software demonstrations of wave diffraction do not appear to me to be notable as they appear quite similar to ripple tank models. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnjbarton, the quote is verbatim from the bottom of reference 16, OpenWME, cited in the article and used in the reinterpretation of diffraction. All the Figures except the first were created with OpenWME (trace to the media wiki source). @XOR'easter usage was correct. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" => The accent is on the word might here. "might" does not mean "are". The argumentation is then presented in a lengthy preprint. Science means to walk through the world with open eyes and to study interesting things when one notices them. It must always be possible to post interesting things. Cadaik (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there are no reliable secondary sources which we could use to verify the content (per WP:V). This is even more important, since revamping classical electrodynamics would be an WP:extraordinary accomplishment which would need strong evidence. (even if there are limits with regard to relativistic speeds) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to walk through the world with open eyes or post interesting things. Science, if at all done, should be done somewhere very far from here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. This statement was referring to a post somewhere in one of the secondary sources. It has nothing to do with the WP article. The article discusses a topic of classical non-relativistic electrodynamics and not quantum mechanics. Cadaik (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is already adequately covered insofar as it might be sourceable, rendering what is not unsourceable redundant. —Quondum 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is 1/2 step away from original research, or what we call synthesis. In any secondary or tertiary source, every sentence and paragraph must have a citation. We just went through this on another AfD. If you don’t understand that, then you shouldn’t be writing or reviewing articles here. Every student at a community college should know that. Having taught secondary school physics and having written physics articles myself, which were peer reviewed but then rejected for publication, I can state that this is just too cutting edge for an encyclopedia. I can’t, however, figure whether it’s a correct. It’s mostly unsourced, so I can’t evaluate the subject matter. If someone wants to submit this to a journal, they can, or ArXiv, or a blog, or if really inspired they can present it at a SF con, but just not here. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian In my opinion there is no need to characterize the editor efforts here in harshly negative personal terms. The presentation is logical and clear. The sourcing here is quite a bit more extensive than most physics articles I have read and worked on. The bulk of the article is clearly derived from two peer reviewed papers by S. Kuhn; the IEEE should be considered a reliable peer review. Sure a few more paragraphs could have citations, but they would still point to the same two sources. That is the problem: this is basically a summary of on primary source. The issue as pointed out by the other posts here is the lack of secondary sources. Let's try to focus on content and not disparage editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Got it. My point was not to bite the newbie. The problem is to distinguish between types of sources. I’ll be more careful. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Financial

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

Run-of-the-mill predatory/payday lender. "Reviews" are indiscriminate WP:SPIP with no meaningful content. Wikipedia is not the place to host brochures. No indication of any independent coverage, in-depth in reliable sources, in fact there's barely anything beyond the SPIP and the routine "I got predatory loaned to" that all of these have, which, while sad, are not great sources for encyclopedic content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on significant coverage that requires evaluation of the product, analysis, overview, survey, and commentary of the journalist and analysts, I found three long-reads by the leading Canadian newspaper, the Global News, which provide significant coverage per WP CORPDEPTH. [36] This one offers the journalist’s in-depth analysis of Spring Financial's business practices, focusing on their "secured savings loans" product. The coverage includes detailed descriptions of the terms and conditions of Spring Financial's loans, including specific details about interest rates (the journalist checked the contract and numbers shared by the unhappy client). It has a high level of evaluation and analysis. Here is a small part of the article with the reporters doing their job: The loan agreement reviewed by Global News does not provide for a so-called “cooling-off” period, a short period of time during which applicants are allowed to request that the contract they signed be voided. In British Columbia, where Canada Drives is based, such a provision is mandatory for payday lenders, which must allow borrowers to cancel a loan by the end of the next day in which they are open for business. There is also a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, commenting on the issue. Of course the personal story is not important by itself, but it’s not a blog or someone interviewed, it’s a real journalistic job. Another two articles [37], [38] have also comprehensive coverage that goes beyond trivial mentions, providing a thorough description, evaluation, comparison with other companies, and analysis of Spring Financial's products and business practices.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A critical analysis of the sources mentioned here would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I doubt pointing out I don't find the coverage significant will help much, though I will point out for reference blog or someone interviewed, it’s a real journalistic job is not particularly grounded in our guidelines on WP:RS, which definitely dings points on human interest reporting per WP:NEWSORG. More importantly though, that's still only one source per WP:MULTSOURCES (same author, same publisher, both need to be different): Do you have two other sources that meet all four points of WP:SIRS, RodrigoIPacce? Preferably ones that clearly meet the criteria, because if there is doubt on the issue, NCORP guidance is to exclude. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Johnson (darts player)

[edit]
Darren Johnson (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)

non-notable darts player All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see the response below: This article was poorly sourced indeed, unfortunately Darts Database website was shut down, hence those links do not work any more. More links and available references have been provided, this player was (and will be) participating in World Championships and major PDC tournaments, I do not think marking him non-notable is fair here. DarthBob (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The additional sources do not contain IRS SIGCOV and/or are routine (e.g. match recaps). Articles from PDC or WDF are not independent. We really want sources that provide SIGCOV of the player's background. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is better sourced and up to date than half of the Wikipedia pages now, it is basically impossible to find any old sources, since darts are a sport, whose media coverage improved only in last years. Darts is quite a simple sport, articles analysing a match throw by throw just does not exist. This seems yet again like an on-going battle against darts articles and profiles, even an effort to improve these articles is not welcomed and a valuable article marked to delete. DarthBob (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't significant coverage of players in the past, then those players by definition are not notable. GNG requires sources with IRS SIGCOV, not just reliable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is a significant coverage of a Darts Player or tournament? What needs to be there? Because articles describing a match throw by throw really do not exist. This discussion was here before, articles deleted, but there was conclusion, that these sources were sufficient, Darts Players who competed on World Championships belong on Wikipedia and it stopped. So I do not understand, why is this happening again. DarthBob (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely don't want match recaps, which are generally routine and primary. In-depth analysis of the player's career, spanning multiple tournaments, is what we're looking for. This is what's required by the guideline for athletes, which was recently strengthened to eliminate participation-based criteria from all sports. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To continue review of new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 26 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 14:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indy Indie

[edit]
Keep Indy Indie (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 a substub which could in theory be merged/redirected to Economy of Indianapolis#Retail trade, but which doesn't appear to have sustained and independent sigcov to even justify that. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 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 11:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rouba

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

BLP of a singer-songwriter, largely unsourced, who seems to have turned their hand to many things in life without being clearly notable for any of them. The Arabic article isn’t any help with sourcing unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 11:09, 26 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 List of Star Wars books. ✗plicit 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Crosscurrent

[edit]
Star Wars: Crosscurrent (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)

Current article fails notability guidelines, WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. On the New York Times bestseller list but I couldn't find a review from a reliable source. Screen Rant article has what I would consider a passing mention: [39] Suggesting a redirect to List of Star Wars books as an alternative to deletion if no review or other piece of significant coverage is found. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Could not find anything anywhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:24, 26 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 ‎ closed as creator moved it back into draftspace themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Skulls

[edit]
The Land of Skulls (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 draftified this article because I don't believe it meets NFILM. However, the newbie creator Cassigad (talk · contribs) reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. I wanted to give them a chance to improve it and submit it for review, but they were too hasty in moving it to the main NS.

Fwiw, the director of this film Farhan Rana Rajpoot has been active on Wikipedia in the past, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Farhan Rana Rajpoot/Archive and has edited using several accounts, all of which are globally locked. They have repeatedly attempted to create a BLP about themselves at Farhan Rana Rajpoot and I wouldn’t be surprised if Cassigad is a new sock of Farhan Rana Rajpoot. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Sir, I don't have any link with him nor do I know him, how do I know who he is and whose account he has and what is his name?
Cassigad (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your "decision" to make. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Sir my first goal in life was that whenever I create a new page, make a statement to research it and do it.Setting your page as you want is to optimize your page because you are an administrator. I am realy hurt Sir! 😭😭😭 Cassigad (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I do respect many many you Sir Please! I am sad, my heart has been hurt 😞😭
Oh, good grief. It's not my decision to make either, so giving me a sob story isn't going to help — it's the community's decision to make through consensus, which is what this discussion is in the process of determining. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Statesmen

[edit]
World Statesmen (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. The references used in the article only provide short descriptions. toweli (talk) 14:02, 19 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! 07:24, 26 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! 06:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican auto insurance (tourist)

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

While this page maybe helpful, I think it fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia isnt here for helping tourists. That's what Google is for. Plus, we don't have other articles talking about this specific type of insurance in other countries. Some of the information over here maybe suitable to add to the page vehicle insurance in the United States JuniperChill (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to add that due to the fact its been prodded before, a soft delete isn't possible. JuniperChill (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 26 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! 21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BenchWarmers DVD Magazine

[edit]
BenchWarmers DVD Magazine (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 any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:38, 19 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! 07:23, 26 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 11:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misaki Uemura

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

Lack of significant and independent coverage. Nothing in ja:wiki either, and extremely weak claim to notability having played 1 game in Japan's second league. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 26 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 11:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shogo Yoshizawa

[edit]
Shogo Yoshizawa (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 significant and independent sources whatsoever, including in ja:wiki. Therefore no indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 26 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) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that retell a work of literature

[edit]
List of songs that retell a work of literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this is impressively referenced, it has major problems. First of all is the scope - what is "retelling"? This term is not linked, nor defined. Effectively this is a very broad "list of song that have some connection to the literary work of fiction". The list is grossly incomplete when we consider religious works - it includes only a dozen or so songs that mention Bible, but I am sure we could find tens of thousands, plus more for Koran, Buddhist texts, etc. And then we come to the elephant in the room, which is the ORish nature of this (i.e. failure of WP:NLIST - is there a similar list in a RS? I don't see much, although I noticed this listicle from The Guardian in the sources: [40]). Note that it uses the term inspired (so.... "list of songs inspired by works of literature"?). Again, the super broad criteria is a problem. Is this about retelling, or being inspired, or what? Is any song that mentions a literary work or character to be included? This is just a gigantic list of trivia, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 26 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! 06:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGlue

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

Not notable. OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 19 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! 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only one press release mentioning this...whatever it is...could be found. As for the parent company, I can find websites and database entries for several entities named In4, but it's not clear any of them have any connection to the In4 in the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Tanahashi

[edit]
Yusuke Tanahashi (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)

Very far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 68 minutes in Japan' second league. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a contested prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:51, 19 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! 06:43, 26 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. This article has been substantially improved since it was nominated on October 11th. I wish we could have seen a source analysis and then I might have closed this as Keep but as of now, it is simply No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Taiger

[edit]
El Taiger (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 can't find any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows that it also lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage. There is a BBC article [46]. There is also coverage before death, in 2022, for instance [47][48][49] He seems a prominent artist. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source is about his death, while the others are press releases about an album and tour. Not significant independent coverage. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 16:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the sources and significabt coverage to be before death of a person. BBC article has significant coverage, it has biography. There are also Cuban sources feom before his death. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs further consideration. First, the nominator is a very new editor who didn't inform the article creator. Also, it would be helpful to see a source review, especially given the additions by Inter&anthro to the article. As AFD regulars know, we don't base deletion decisions on the condition of the article at the time of the discussion but on the notabiity of the article subject. Sources do not have to be added to the article, they can be brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,there were many arguments based not on practices of AFDs.
But article was improved anyway, and the sources were added. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding nominator, I have looked at his other nominations and am worried.
Other artists from Latin America are nominated, at least one more reggaeton artist eas nominated. They use the same rationale.
I see another nomination of the person who recently died. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although we typically are against other stuff exists, there is actually a spanish language version of wikipedia and he has an article there. [53] . I am saying keep based upon significant coverage. He is extremely well known and his death a little while back only goes to show his popularity. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:34, 30 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! 04:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tambudzai Mncube

[edit]
Natasha Tambudzai Mncube (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 relies on a very limited number of sources, primarily one cited article and a reference to Britannica. Many key details, such as her participation in "Big Brother The Chase" in 2013, her origin, and her personal history, are uncited. A WP:BEFORE search brought nothing out, and the article reads more like a promotional profile than an encyclopedic entry. The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed reference to "Britannica" is in fact linked to the same Drum (SNL24) article as the first ref. So that there's only one source. It may be considered significant although based on an interview but I suppose it's not enough. The awards that she has apparently founded the Shining star Africa awards have received some coverage. Again, is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I genuinely cannot find anything outside of the Drum source, despite a decent search. It is mainly about her (not just about the award with passing mentions). But it's WP:PRIMARY as it's 90% direct quotes from her with the other 10% being "She told the drum that..." and primary sources don't count towards notability per WP:BIO. Therefore, I don't believe she presently meets the requirements. MolecularPilot 05:23, 26 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Qadeer

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

Fails GNG. Written like a PROMO. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:34, 26 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 this article (read the latest comments to the discussion). Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate finance in the United States

[edit]
Climate finance in the United States (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)

AI-generated redundant fork of Climate change policy of the United States sourced entirely to primary sources. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, the first version had bullet point and errors in format that I thought was referred to AI format. I have changed the format. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netforcarbon To be clear, did you use AI to write this article? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raccoon not AI to write the article but I do have an AI review and format assistant. I also use an AI editor but the content is from my notes and reviews of other documents on the US commitments and outcomes pertaining to climate finance which is also within my profession. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I continued this discussion on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was alerted to this from the WikiProject Climate Change talk page. I haven't looked at the actual content yet but in general, I am against creating such sub-sub-articles, which usually end up lingering with very low pageviews. Why not rather include some of this content as an example in the article climate finance? Or else within a U.S. specific climate change article like suggested above. Like Climate change policy of the United States or Climate change in the United States.
Also if WikiEdu or someone is organising a drive to create lots of these "climate finance" type articles for specific countries then please alert others through the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (early on, not just at the end). Thanks to User:FULBERT for the recent alert.
Also, using Chat-GPT (or similar) for language polishing or for ideas for structuring the article is perfectly fine. Using it for actually up to date content generation might be flawed. I am curious to learn how (if) you used AI for this exercise? If done correctly and carefully there is nothing wrong with that. But you'd have to be able to detect hallucinations and wrong information while working with it. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile I did not use AI to write content but I do use AI for format and for the final review. I will go back to rewrite content. I appreciate the insight to the wikiworld and the community of editors! Excellence in information sharing and climate finance in the Unites States is relevant and needs its own place of explanations that ultimately lead to the transparency of climate actions pertaining to financing. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, welcome to Wikipedia, User:Netforcarbon. I hope you like it here. My point is that if you want your content to be seen and read, then you might be better off integrating it into an existing article rather than creating a new one from scratch. I don't know if you have discovered the page view graphs yet? You can access it from the top "view history" tab. In general, I recommend to new Wikipedia editors to rather improve and enrich existing articles with higher pageviews rather than focusing on low pageview articles or even completely new articles. You have more impact with the high pageview articles. Also, if climate finance already has quite low pageviews (see here) then what makes you think that "climate finance in country X" would get any more pageviews? EMsmile (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netforcarbon and Will (Wiki Ed). If you are interested, I think a discussion about the campaign on the wp:WikiProject Climate Change talk page could be fruitful. This would be a less stressful and more collaborative environment than AfD. One of my concerns at the moment is this and possibly other articles serving as an uncritical, promotional listing of things that governments and corporations have called climate finance. Unfortunately quite a few things that are labelled climate finance are greenwashing, fossil fuel subsidies in disguise, or just ineffective. If we could start with a broader conversation about your goals and your skillsets, we could help you with things like figuring out what sources to use and choosing high-impact articles to create/improve. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot Thanks for that recommendation - I'll post something soon. I also appreciate the greenwashing concern. I think this is exactly why we should be focusing on this area. Separating substantive climate change mitigation action from greenwashing is important. The funding element is also challenging, but its as important as any other kind of legislation. Thanks again! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the US has such enormous financial clout that the topic seems to me to be notable. US policy and finance are both so influential there should be enough info for two articles. Although they will overlap somewhat not all policy is finance (for example policy can make regulations or diplomacy) and not all finance is policy (for example Tesla was only partly government funded - a lot was private, and much else is private finance e.g. 3 Mile Island). Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 18 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) 02:37, 19 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) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear Keep Climate finance is a particular thing in the US, and is somewhat similar but also very different than the policy space. I would be skeptical if every country had a climate finance article -- but at least the European Union, China, India and the US need seperate articles -- because of the outsized influence they play in financing in other parts of the world, Sadads (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep I agree the sources need work but this is clearly a notable topic, especially as noted above for the US. John Cummings (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. asilvering (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Econofoods

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much guaranteed that when an editor starts arguing to ignore NCORP, its an acknowledgement that the topic fails the criteria. HighKing++ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. WiinterU 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft to provide time for further research and potential expansion. Newspapers.com returns 34,082 matches for "Econofoods", though at first glance many are advertisements and many are for uses other than this subject. Nonetheless, some are substantive articles addressing this article subject, and a deeper dive might uncover enough to meet NCORP. BD2412 T 00:46, 26 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 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! 03:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPark Christian Academy

[edit]
GreenPark Christian Academy (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)

One-line stub for an obscure religious private school in St. Louis. The only references are non-independent. I wouldn't really call this to be significant coverage. This makes a passing mention of the school closing in 2010. There's a couple sentences here about the school closing, but that article is about a different entity. I just don't see a pass of WP:NSCHOOL here; it says something about the article subject that this school has apparently been closed for over 15 years and our article on it has not been updated with that information. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything myself. The school has been closed for nearly 15 years and it is not notable to have its own article. I've checked the sources you've listed and do not think that the coverage is anything extraordinary or enough to give the school its own article. Looking at previous versions of the article, I don't think the lawsuits mentioned really materialized into any news. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to insufficient independent and verifiable sources that establish the school's notability, as the content primarily focuses on basic institutional details without broader significance or coverage.--Moarnighar (talk) 11:18, 28 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! 03:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk

[edit]
Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk (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 describes what was likely a minor skirmish and says of it “There is no independent confirmation from reliable sources.” Which means we should not have an article on it. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 26 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 Procedural close‎. No one has participated yet. I am moving to Draft space, but I can't do that if an AFD is active. This is kind of tweaking policy a bit, normally the same person doesn't do both, but there is a valid reason to have it in draft space, as the company is real, but hasn't existed enough to establish notability. Additionally, if people had voted, they would have likely voted to draftify. So call it a little WP:IAR, a little housekeeping, or whatever, but this it the outcome that is most likely. Had you asked an admin to just draftify it, most would have agreed and done that anyway. No harm, no foul. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky FRU

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

While the article itself only cites primary sources, I still tried to look for the sources for this subject and there are some but they are about announcements regarding this airline. This fails WP:N. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:54, 26 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 14:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of South Korea, Ankara

[edit]
Embassy of South Korea, Ankara (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:ORG. Only 2 primary sources provided. A search for sources found incidents like this which don't really add to notability. https://www.turkiyetoday.com/turkiye/south-korean-ambassador-jeong-yeondoo-prefers-yht-for-ankara-trip-539/ LibStar (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you suggest a Redirect or Merge, specify the target article or action can't be taken on your suggestion. A source review of recently located sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a source review, and they have nothing to do with the embassy. The first is about the relations in general, including newer developments such as "In January 2023, a Korean company signed a contract with Turkey for the supply of 101 Altay tank power packs and main parts". The second source is about Ambassador Jeong praising Turkish cuisine. The third is about a ceremony at the Turks Who Fought in Korea Monument. None of them can be construed to support notability for the physical embassy in any way. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above assessment. Additional sources do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 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 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! 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarita Botsman

[edit]
Tarita Botsman (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 BLP sourcing issues since 2022. Article is largely cited to primary and non-independent sources. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SINGER. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 19 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! 03:19, 26 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. Star Mississippi 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Bancorp

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date Brokerage Analyst Name Action Rating Price Target Upside/Downside on Report Date Details
10/2/2024 Raymond James Boost Target Outperform ➝ Outperform $45.00 ➝ $48.00 +7.55% View Report Details
9/20/2024 Truist Securities Boost Target Hold ➝ Hold $46.00 ➝ $50.00 +6.68% View Report Details
8/27/2024 Piper Sandler Reiterated Rating Neutral ➝ Neutral $38.00 ➝ $38.00 -17.84% View Report Details
4/23/2024 Stephens Lower Target Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight $44.00 ➝ $40.00 +4.49% View Report Details
4/22/2024 DA Davidson Lower Target Buy ➝ Buy $48.00 ➝ $45.00 +25.28% View Report Details
  • Comment I have access to reports of this type. A more correct name for those reports are "price target" reports. They do not contain in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company, instead they contain calculations based on earnings, dividends, projections, etc and then determine whether, according to their proprietary calculations, whether the stock price will move and therefore whether they recommend an investor should buy/hold/sell. That's not to say that those analysts haven't created fuller reports which do, in fact, contain in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company. Just that those ones linked above aren't it. HighKing++ 13:55, 1 November 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) 02:39, 19 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! 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dclemens, and a quick Google news search[60]. This company likely meets notability criteria. Takipoint123 (talk) 21:39, 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 redirect‎ to Teens of Denial. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1937 State Park

[edit]
1937 State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that was copied and pasted from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search reveals links about the band but not the song. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:31, 26 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! 02:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Anderson (director)

[edit]
Mitch Anderson (director) (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 evidence of significant coverage. I came across the article when nominating several of his directed films for deletion (see 1, 2, 3), and subsequent searches for him specifically have failed to turn up more sources, even after narrowing the search terms to avoid other Mitch Andersons. His IMDb credits are relatively light, supporting the idea that there is likely no significant coverage of him or his work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very minimal coverage now in the article, does not seem to meet notability. I can't find anything about this person, also his personal website appears to be inactive. Trex32 (talk) 02:50, 26 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 delete‎ under G5 by Explicit. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in the Neutral Zone of Junik

[edit]
Conflict in the Neutral Zone of Junik (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 only has two citations and it's for the background, which is basically copied what is already in the Neutral Zone of Junik. There's nothing that supports any of the text in the article. Also looks like a WP:POVFORK of Neutral Zone of Junik and Kachak Movement.

I tried to move it to draft but it was disallowed as this same article was already created by another editor and recently moved to draftspace by @Joy: Draft:Conflict in the Neutral Zone of Junik. Griboski (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With title as contrived as this (0 hits in a Google Books search), this looks like Hellenistic dude and Based Drenica are some form of a WP:SOCK policy violation.
Maybe the same guy who's been pushing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian–Yugoslav conflict and whatever other recent spate of nonsense? That was NormalguyfromUK, who was blocked and locked already.
--Joy (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more than a tad suspect that Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of NormalguyfromUK already contains 2 other usernames called "Based" something. --Joy (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange. I assume CU would have found that in the last SPI entry. But as was pointed out there, for most of them it seems like they are just friends coordinating off-wiki on TikTok and Discord. There is a constant fresh stream of accounts creating these bad Albanian POV battle articles.
@Demetrios1993: interestingly pointed out how a recent academic paper mentioned one of these accounts was massively creating AI-generated articles. --Griboski (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Griboski and Joy: I began an SPI on Based Drenica; they appear to be a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Albanian atdhetar. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, the parts about promoting your cause off-wiki. The standard for handling that should be in line with the topic area this is in. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 26 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.