Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 29

< October 28 October 30 >
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Jutson

[edit]
Andrea Jutson (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:AUTHOR. A search on google news found articles authored by her but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. This article she is merely quoted as a cafe visitor. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete had a good look around and there is no SIGCOV. I also can't find really any mention of them in major NZ media outlets at all. Does not meet notability. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The sourcing in the article as it stands is very poor and just like others I could find no sigcov which could be used to improve it. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Baghdadiyun, Akhbaruhum Wa Majalisuhum

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

Article about a book that is currently entirely lacking in in depth coverage in reliable independent sources so appears not to pass WP:NBOOK. Better sources may be available in Arabic but I haven’t found any. Mccapra (talk) 23:36, 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Georgia relations

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

Article solely based on primary sources from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Cyprus). Lacking third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 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× ☎ 11:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Action

[edit]
Centenary Action (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 poorly formatted article; most of the sources in the article and the before search seem to revolve around Helen Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information has been deleted from the page.
The information deleted was a description of this organisation. Why?
https://centenaryaction.org.uk/ Kps2015 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in your explanation is a reason for deleting the article according to the guidelines. Kps2015 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Kps2015 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
@Kps2015 Notability isn't inherited; this is both a deletion argument to avoid and referenced in the biographical notability standards. The spirit of this guideline quite likely applies to companies people own. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your response (although I don't fully understand it!).
The problems with this page arise from the fact that fuller information about this organisation has been deleted (on grounds of copyright). The solution is to restore the full information about this organisation, not to delete the page. I will endeavour to sort this out. Kps2015 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 I really doubt that restoring the information will help with keeping the article. It's probably best to find sources that talk about centenary action without centering Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't "centre Pankhurst" it makes one mention of her. That is not a valid reason for deleting the page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability isn't inherited" - I think what you are saying that it isn't of interest that the grand-daughter of those who campaigned for women's suffrage is campaigning in this area today. I would have thought that is arguable. Either way, how is that a reason for deleting an entire page about a major campaigning organisation, rather than simply amending it? Kps2015 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 You misundertand. I'm saying that it appears that Centenary Action is inheriting notability from that great-grandaughter, which I interpret to be something in violation of an invalid way to get notability. Please read the link I gave you. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses - if you look at the organisations which are members you will see that this is a serious lobbying organisation. Your personal feelings about the founder aren't a reason to delete a Wikipedia page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:15, 23 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 23:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can only find hits on the words, nothing about this organization. Could perhaps be a line or two in women's voting rights in the UK or something, but we don't have coverage in RS. Most of them in the article are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 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 merge‎ to Bosporus. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boğaziçi (Istanbul)

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

Tagged uncited since 2009 and Turkish article is also uncited. Sounds plausible but probably needs a native speaker living in İstanbul to say whether this is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have left a message on WikiProject Turkey if they could help with this. TNM101 (chat) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have tagged the Turkish article as uncited in the hope that native speakers might add good sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD does not qualify for a Speedy Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoyfulTentmaker, this could be seen as canvassing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, @Liz. I thought this would be considered an appropriate notification as stated in the canvassing guideline, since that is a central location and I was completely open about it. (A more conventional noticeboard for this, WikiProject Turkey, is unfortunately very inactive lately, and maybe this could attract the interest of some existing/prospective project members.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz @TheJoyfulTentmaker I am happy with any of my AfD being publicised on Turkish Wikipedia. In very many cases there is either no Turkish article or it is completely uncited. Many of the Turkish editors would be able to contribute here, but even if they don’t want to come to enwiki if they could cite on trwiki we could simply copy the cite to enwiki. Especially for the many uncited Turkish music, TV and film articles they will be far more knowledgable than me. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess there is no problem here then. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Bosphorus in the absence of input from native speakers or Istanbul residents. I can't find other sources that verify this use of the term "Boğaziçi," and the Turkish version doesn't provide sources either. Finally able to view the encyclopedia link provided above now that IA is back online, and it does seem to say this term may be used to refer to the neighborhoods adjacent to the Bosphorus. However, I don't know that the sourcing is strong enough to warrant a standalone article. (I'm open to changing my view if additional sources are presented or a local expert can provide perspective. FWIW, my spouse, while not a Turk, does speak some Turkish and has lived in Istanbul and she knows "Boğaziçi" as a reference to the strait, not as a collective term for the neighborhoods that border it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971 I have no strong objection to a merge for now, since the there seems to be an overlap with the Bosphorus article. However, if anyone is interested in splitting it back and writing a standalone article, I'm pretty sure there will be no shortage of sources. Side note: adding this poem, which I believe is notable on its own, for demonstrating common references to the neighborhood in Turkish literature. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. The correct target page though is Bosporus, the page mentioned in the comments is a redirect page for it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge fine by me as requestor Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 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 00:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Boyarski

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

Subject notable only for one event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nominator, otherwise ordinary citizen who received brief attention for action that while laudable, does not attribute him with notability (or coverage demonstrating such) warranting inclusion in an encycloapedia. Keeping would cross BLP1E and NOTNEWS.— MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does his MB qualify him for The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor? Cremastra (u — c) 23:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. It's not nothing, but it's not highly mega-notable enough to render him permanently notable in the absence of sustained WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He was awarded both a Carnegie Medal for heroism and a Canadian Medal of Bravery. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maile66 an award alone does not confer notability. Per WP:N - (in reference to notability guidelines including WP:ANYBIO): People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards… meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Awards don't make people notable enough for encyclopedia articles if your source for the award is the award's own self-published website about itself — that's a primary source, not a GNG-building one, and that wipes out two of the three footnotes here. The key to making him permanently notable on this basis would require coverage about him in third party sources unaffiliated with the statement — namely media coverage and/or books — and just one hit of that isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no way that this wasn't covered in newspapers when it happened in 1985. I'm skeptical that this is more than WP:BLP1E, but if no one's even found those news articles I don't think we can say we've done a full search for sources yet. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 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 redirect‎ to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election. Closing early. This should not have been de-redirected in the first place without going through WP:DRV. I'll salt. asilvering (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Gibson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Susanna Gibson (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)

Consensus in the previous AfD that this was a WP:BLP1E due to the only coverage being in the context of a failed election campaign. Was recreated by a new user with few edits outside of this page. Don't think anything has changed since the last AfD (there's been some minor coverage of a bill she advocated for a few months later but nothing substantial), and the article should be redirected back to 2023_Virginia_House_of_Delegates_election, with the title ECP'd. I also think having an article about a person whose apparent sole reason for notability is a sex scandal is inadvisable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete - I defer to more experienced Wikipedians than me. Thank you for the summary. I'll add three main points. Pmcc3 (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) One significant change since the last AfD wrapped up is that S.G. lost the election which makes her less notable than if she had won ("Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges with emphasis added).
B) Also, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
C) Examining the WP:BLP1E standard, the first two criteria arguably are met (1, only in context of the single event; 2, low profile) but what of criterion 3? There my assessment is that it is not "well documented" because there is one WaPo article and then many reports essentially parrot the WaPo article uncritically (or copy it inaccurately). If the WaPo article gets anything wrong, so will its derivatives. In the case of Joe Gow for comparison, there was much adversarial analysis in committee hearings at a University with lawyers present over the course of months (with no politics or election deadlines) in order to try to determine the truth, and many independent reporters, and still many facts are in dispute. The WaPo article about S.G. was published rapidly in the middle of a political campaign. It describes its own "Deep Throat" as follows: "The Republican operative who alerted The Post to the videos ... provided the information on the condition of anonymity to avoid being drawn into the controversy." The WaPo article is based in part on audio in the videos, but fake words trivially could have been dubbed, not even requiring sophistication of deep fakes. The WaPo, like TwitterX, is owned and controlled by a single individual, sullying each one's trustworthiness. Pmcc3 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pmcc3: You're obviously new to AfD. When you comment in the discussion, you're supposed to provide a clear indication of your position. If you support deleting the article, you should place a bolded Delete at the front of your comment, or in the case of redirecting, a bolded Redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am indeed a novice to almost every aspect of contributing to Wikipedia and have always been impressed that it works as well as it does. Apologies and thanks again. Pmcc3 (talk) 15:32, 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 keep‎. Overall, I'm seeing a consensus to keep the article here. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Azrael

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sons of Azrael (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)

Band exited, two of the members died.. existence is not notability. WP:NALBUM not established. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a review from Metal Injection. toweli (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toweli:, can we ascertain if it's a notability establishing reliable source? It says an online publication. So, we first have to see if it's more along a blog, WP:HUFFPOCON, or closer to Vogue magazine. The wiki article had an exhaustive EMPLOYEE DIRECTORY in it.. so I'm not feeling too confident. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The state of the Wikipedia article is of course irrelevant. What matters is editorial oversight of reviews, which stops random people from reviewing anonymously. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A zine consisting of members of one or two bands can have an editorial oversight. Such is completely useless in notability though. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Injection is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That discussion is just your response to a long list of sources. LINK No discussion other than your opinionated it's reliable. Nothing followed acknowledging/refuting. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make an assessment of Metal Injection or any of the sources except Bloody Disgusting. Most of the assessment including Metal Injection was by @Sergecross73:, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Injection has been on WP:RSMUSIC for a long time without any contention I can recall. It has no restrictions on its use either. I believe it counts toward notability. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are referring to by "zine consisting of members of one or two bands". What it looks like is making up fictitious types of sources, and grasping at one straw after another. Furthermore, it would benefit the discussion if you stopped bludgeoning it. Geschichte (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has reliable sources coverage such as AllMusic and Metal Injection and some newspaper articles linked in the previous AfD discussion. Overall there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The many sources found by all the "keep" voters above are more than enough to establish notability, at least pertaining to the extreme metal community. The many album reviews have editorial oversight, and several have some band history that can be used to flesh out the article. Color me suspicious of the nominator's initial reasoning (no sign of WP:BEFORE) and continuing resistance to different opinions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:30, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinya Tokuni

[edit]
Shinya Tokuni (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)

Massively fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Was rightfully prodded only 5 minutes after it was created, but now it's time to end it once and for all. There is no claim to notability whatsoever, and if anything, the speedy deletion criteria should be amended to include cases like this. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 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 merge‎ to Otego (town), New York. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calder Hill

[edit]
Calder Hill (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:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 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 redirect‎ to Kilgore, Texas#Sports. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports in Kilgore

[edit]
Sports in Kilgore (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:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Subject is of a very small town. Only sources are primary. All relevant information is already in Kilgore, Texas -1ctinus📝🗨 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net A web host of information by the league No, hosted for the league Yes No, user-supplied content. No
2 d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net A web host of information by the league No, hosted for the league Yes No, user-supplied content. No
3 d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net A web host of information by the league No, hosted for the league Yes No, user-supplied content. No
4 d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net A web host of information by the league No, hosted for the league Yes No, user-supplied content. No

Reliable independent sources may exist, but are not in this article, so it is reasonable to move the article into draft space and allow the originator time to find sources (but not reasonable to leave the article in article space while reliable sources are lacking). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Pantera

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

Failed WP:BEFORE search. So unsourced that I missed the one source that was there and accidentally BLPROD'd initially (it was rightfully reverted by GB fan). Unfortunately, I find that non-BLP PRODs get reverted by article creators pretty quickly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 21:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Pine Cone

[edit]
Carmel Pine Cone (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 opening line says it all: "The Carmel Pine Cone is a small weekly Californian newspaper." and it's been one since its inception. Carmel-by-the Sea is a tiny town. The fact the the Pine Cone has an article here has been used to suggest that articles in it carry notability. That has been used in the construction of a walled garden by a single editor to boost the reputation of this tiny place. Despite a reference in the NYT (close inspection will show it to be a passing mention) not one of the ten references verify any notability. WP:V is one of our key tenets. No V? No article. Fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we slow down Carmel-related AfDs please? Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The Newspaper.com link above is pretty impressive. 2,223 (1,262 in California) matches for "Carmel Pine Cone". Click on that list, and it looks to include each of the Unitied States. — Maile (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To provide a short backstory for context, this article is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo; here is a link to ANI that will provide more context:[8]. This was the final ANI discussion that led to the creator's site ban after many, many discussions.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor, Left guide who deleted some of the material, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sources, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions as problems went on for over a decade before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate sourcing has been brought to meet GNG. Whether it can be used for supporting notability of other articles is a separate question to its own notability; no-one is suggesting deleting Daily Mail. I looked additionally at the WL Ebscosearch and there are 29 hits, some of the selection that I clicked go beyond a casual mention; eg THE 1950 ANTA PRODUCTION OF THE TOWER BEYOND TRAGEDY. KARMAN, JAMES. Jeffers Studies. 2021/2022, Vol. 22, p27-94 (more than a paragraph); James H . Worthington (1884-1980): A quest for totality, observatories & Martian canals. Mobberley, Martin. Journal of the British Astronomical Association. Dec2018, Vol. 128 Issue 6, p331-346. (paragraph); SCOOP SEASON. CARTER, ASH; BRIGHT, JOSHUA. Town & Country. Aug2012, Vol. 166 Issue 5385, p92-99 (3 short paras); or give useful factual information eg Missing Women: The Inexplicable Disparity Between Women In Steinbeck's Life And Those In His Fiction. Gladstein, Mimi Reisel. Steinbeck Question: New Essays in Criticism. 1993, p84-98 (one of the women described became its editor); History and Historicity in the Work of Langston Hughes. Ostrom, Hans. Critical Insights: Langston Hughes. 2012, p69-86 (Langston Hughes published poetry in it); but even the passing mentions/citations suggest that a wide range of independent reliable publications (incl. academic journals, academic books, British newspapers) consider material in the Carmel Pine Cone to be worth citing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the problematic history of our Carmel articles, not all Carmel articles are non-notable, even when the topic itself is localized to Carmel. Just as with any other town, some local institutions are actually notable. In this case, some of our many sources are not in-depth, but sources primarily about this newspaper in the Oakland Tribune (1916) and Los Angeles Times (2003 & 2013) are non-local, in-depth, and reliable, giving a pass of WP:GNG and of the stronger non-local sourcing requirements of WP:NCORP. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (1932) and Orange County Register (1940) pieces also appear from their headlines to be non-local newspaper stories primarily about this topic, but I have no link to judge their depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources listed above seem to be enough for GNG and NCORP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, not everything local is non-notable and the sources here seem to evidence notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 22:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Heron (writer)

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. He acted in a play which had 1,000 attendees. This is true barrel scraping. This is a Born - Lived - Died article about a WP:ROTM person who was doubtless notable to the who loved him 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Djflem (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem apparently the page was deleted; so maybe another target could be considered? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 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 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 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Guillod

[edit]
David Guillod (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)

Declined four times in AfC, and after the fourth decline the draft creator moved it to mainspace. I've removed a BLP violating section with various very poor sources including Google Docs pages(!).

There is no actual claim to notability. The only independent, secondary source that provides more than extremely minimal coverage is the NYT article which is not enough. WP:BLP1E also applies to that source. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 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× ☎ 21:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Inglis

[edit]
Kenny Inglis (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 search to check if he was notable only returned interviews and other primary sources. As notability isn't inherited from something else, I don't think he's notable. Tavantius (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Shaikh

[edit]
Fahad Shaikh (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 BLP was created by Fadushake (talk · contribs) - the subject themselves, as shown in the edit summary. I did a quick G'search and found nothing substantial to establish GNG, so I’m nom it for deletion. The subject has had roles in a few TV series, but that doesn’t guarantee their standalone BLP on Wikipedia. Anyone arguing that they meet NACTOR should keep this in mind when voting. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 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× ☎ 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Bashir Tarar

[edit]
Humayun Bashir Tarar (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)

@Crosji: flagged this BLP and questioned its WP:N. I suggested they take it to AFD, but since they haven't, I'm stepping in to nom it for deletion because I don’t see it meeting GNG, even at the borderline. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 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× ☎ 21:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Altau

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

Being the managing director of JBAN, a non-profit organization, does not make a politician inherently notable. A non-elected politician in a nationwide office fails to meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, so they also fail to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person has been interviewed by major outlets DW, VOC, ERR. He has appeared on C-SPAN, and has several articles in Estonian and English media.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Tore Eestimees (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! To sustain a Wikipedia biography, we have to have enough sources that are about the person, more so than feature the person. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEWS. We're not looking for sources in which he's speaking about himself or other things, we're looking for sources in which he's the subject being spoken or written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 21:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Newberry

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. As for the play, 1,000 theatregoers is woefully small. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Theatre, and California. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an interesting entry about a small-town Mayor and newspaper publisher, but it is horribly written. Someone had removed a lot of the content before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is another entry in the "Carmelopedia" what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO effort to promote all things Carmel-by-the-Sea. This mayor, whose term ran for two years, of a town of less than 700 people during his term, does not meet notability criteria for an encyclopedia article. According to the article, he is "best known" for his efforts to keep Carmel free from tourists; this does not confer inherent notability. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. He was also a non-notable writer (fails WP:NAUTHOR) and he acted in a play at a local theater in Carmel (fails WP:NACTOR). (The Forest Theater section is because he acted in a play there - this is typical bloat/puffery from the editor who is now blocked for COI/UPE and poor sourcing.) The sources are all local or hyper-local, or sourced to the Carmel Residents Association (COI), or the questionable "Arcadia Publisher" Images of America series of books for the tourist trade. The New York Times citation does not mention him at all. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: How do you know that he only served as mayor for 2 years? The article says that the was elected for a 2nd term as mayor. Most mayors serve for 4 years, so that would indicate that he was mayor for 8 years. If that is not true, you should add refs to the article to make that clear for reviewers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox states that he was In office 1922–1924. I have no idea why his term was so short. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are notoriously full of errors. It is far more likely that the infobox is simply wrong. Definitely never rely on uncited infobox assertions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not verify the claim in the two citations in the article regarding two mayoral terms either. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source says he was mayor from 1923-24.[19] It's from the Carmel Residents Association, so it's a connected source - doesn't contribute to notability and probably should not be used in the encyclopedia, esp. since the dates don't match up with the above. However, it also does not mention anything about a second term. The article creator had a habit of sometimes misrepresenting sources which was one of the reasons for his block, so the two term claim should probably be taken with a grain of salt unless it can be verified to an independent reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a NYT article that is helpful. I think the 2nd term as mayor is dubious and have deleted that, because if it were true, the NYT article would likely have said so. I also saw a listing of all the mayors of Carmel in a non-RS, but it listed someone else from 1928 to 1930. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albedo Space

[edit]
Albedo Space (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; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups"). Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nasa is a different and unrelated organization. The company develops "very low earth orbit" satellites so if the article is going to be redirected, it makes sense to redirect there. Equally valid to just delete the article if the redirect doesn't make sense and an alternative doesn't exist... HighKing++ 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 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 redirect‎ to University of Jammu. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Degree College, Doda

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

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The currently cited sources are not WP:SIGCOV. While searching, I wasn’t able to find reliable sources with significant coverage. GrabUp - Talk 16:20, 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! 17:13, 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. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokuz Sekiz Müzik

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 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! 17:10, 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× ☎ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Starship Excelsior episodes

[edit]
List of Starship Excelsior episodes (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:NLIST, references consists of primary sources and unreliable sources like WP:IMDB. Mika1h (talk) 16:59, 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 redirect‎ to Yogscast. Owen× ☎ 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lane

[edit]
Simon Lane (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)

Unclear notability, and the info is already covered in the The Yogscast article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point if he is already mentioned- lets create a redirect that redirects the simon lane visitors over to Yogscast's article. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 16:58, 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× ☎ 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hejaaz International School

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

No refs on the page for many years. Schools are no longer considered to have inherent notability and few sources found to consider against the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 16:17, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GITEX ASIA

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

Promotional article for non-notable upcoming technology expo. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find was more of what's cited here: press releases, routine coverage in expo listings, and paid placement. I was about to redirect it to GITEX as an alternative to deletion, but thought it was better bring it to AFD first. Wikishovel (talk) 15:58, 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× ☎ 20:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Rush (franchise)

[edit]
Gravity Rush (franchise) (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)

Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Crime (series) recently closed as delete, this article is suffering from the same problems. Gravity Rush, as a series, fails WP:GNG, and also goes against the guidelines established in WP:VG/POP#Remakes, expansions, and series articles (there are only 2 games and a film that is not yet in production) OceanHok (talk) 15:49, 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× ☎ 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviencloud

[edit]
Aviencloud (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 coverage. Borderline A7. C F A 💬 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only thing of relevance I found in the sources is "thanks to the song's distributing label, Aviencloud, whose releases are copyright-free." from edm.com IgelRM (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 33 cites, and they're basically all a combination of self-cites, things that might say the word Aviencloud somewhere in passing, and quite a few about people or businesses who have some kind of tangential relation to Aviencloud and don't even mention it. There's basically nothing here about Aviencloud, even if you try and stretch the word "significant" as if it were taffy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #comment I have reviewed the article and noticed a potential conflict of interest, as the title matches the name of the article's major contributor. Regarding its notability, the content is covered by 1 but I could not verify the reputation of this source. If it is considered reputable, it could support the page's relevance, in addition to other minor mentions. However, if it is not a credible source, the article would likely need to be deleted.Instant History (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I neutralized the article to an extent. Kept informative things only and kept some sources that are already cited on Wikipedia. As per my understanding the channel is supportive and popular among the particular niche. Also, I believe it meets general notability and notability of a YouTube channel/people if I compare with some similar pages that we have here.NatalieTT (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prison blogs

[edit]
Prison blogs (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:LINKFARM, linking only to external sites, with no other content besides that. Clearly unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic per WP:LINKFARM Encoded  Talk 💬 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope - The current content is hardly salvageable, but there is some academic sources that make the topic notable.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Allport

[edit]
Rhys Allport (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 notability from secondary sources. Only one appearance by a 4th tier team in English tournament. Demt1298 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 14:52, 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 14:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Robinson (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG No evidence of notability in secondary sources. One one match at the 4th level of English soccer. Demt1298 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 14:44, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Box Cricket League

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

Not a G4, but nor have factors changed in the last month since the most recent AfD. Star Mississippi 14:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about the previous afds, I found information about this show on the internet, and I checked it has a wikidata page and Hindi Wikipedia, I just tried to translate the Hindi version to English with additional references and following editing policies, please let me know if I made a mistake.
Initially, I made this with the AFC template but because there’s a long waiting time, I moved it directly to the mainspace.
Thanks.
Zuck28 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do anything wrong @Zuck28 and you're not required to use AfC. Each Wikipedia has their own guidelines for notability. Discussions here have concluded that it doesn't meet the requirements. Since the last discussion was a month ago, it's unlikely but consensus can change. The community will decide here whether it has. Star Mississippi 14:53, 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 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by education

[edit]
List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by education (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 notability guidelines for lists. Afaik, no sources in the Netherlands focus on the background of prime ministers in such a way. Dajasj (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. I would probably also nominate Religious affiliations of prime ministers of the Netherlands for deletion too, as I don't see any sources discussing that either. Procyon117 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 23:04, 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 redirect‎ to 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team#Week 2: at Yale as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1927 Georgia vs. Yale football game

[edit]
1927 Georgia vs. Yale football game (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)

Regular season college football game that has not received continued coverage. Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:40, 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 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Village

[edit]
Haven Village (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 does not appear to be a notable place. It is not marked on Ordnance Survey mapping or included in List of United Kingdom locations: Has-Hd. Considering the references:

  • "Post office directory": the only hit for "haven village" appears to be the phrase "Skegness is a small haven, village ...": a red herring
  • Newcomb: confirms that "Haven Village" is a postal address but does no more
  • Hennessy: "lives in Haven Village, Boston, which is a block of flats run by Encore Estate Management."
  • Quadrant: survey is for "Haven Village ltd." - suburbs are not companies
  • Archaeological: confirms Haven Village as a location, former warehouse site and mentions "groundworks associated with a residential development at Haven Village"

Nothing here suggests that HV is a "suburb" of Boston. The encyclopedia does not need an article on every housing development. PamD 12:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned this AfD at Talk:Boston, Lincolnshire#Boston-related AfD to draw it to the attention of editors interested in Boston. PamD 12:30, 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 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch politicians with doctorates

[edit]
List of Dutch politicians with doctorates (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)

Firstly, it's a pretty niche topic and I'm not confident it's notable enough. Second, it's orphaned and it's not obvious to me what other articles could link to it. Third, it's outdated now and cumbersome to keep up to date. Luxorr (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, afaik this gets no attention in the Netherlands and the article appears to be started only because there is an American version. There are not enough Dutch politics editors here, so it is unlikely to get ever updated because it is low priority Dajasj (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an "X with Y" list, but I don't see any reliable sources about the topic of politicians with doctorates, Dutch or otherwise. Fails WP:NLIST.
Note I found a discussion for a page similar to this one: [20] Wizmut (talk) 20:02, 31 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 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazeem Aremu

[edit]
Kazeem Aremu (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:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. Majority of the sources are primary sources like Google scholars and the article has been drafted before. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either draftify or delete, as it is not notable, as you said. Primary sources are not acceptable (i will place a maintenance tag if not there for now) and it doesn't follow the WP:ANYBIO terms. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:50, 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 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletico Physical Therapy

[edit]
Athletico Physical Therapy (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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Sourcing mainly consists of press releases, WP:CORPTRIV routine announcements, and non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search wasn't of much help, mostly directory listings and passing mentions. Left guide (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Sports, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cant find any coverage to speak of. Gave up a few pages after the yelp reviews. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if you search on "Althletico" quite a lot comes up (not the football team). While it is not the world's largest PT, it is a well established one; I have in fact twice been a customer. I wonder if a detailed WP:BEFORE was done using all permutations. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ldm1954, I don't think I've seen you on CORP AFDs much, just wanted to quickly confirm if you're aware normally a lot of the search results we normally see are press releases, which are excluded under WP:ORGIND. For example, of the first 15 google results on my end for Athletico -paranaense about the company instead of the football club ([21] [22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]) only one (number 6 on the list) is not a press release, and even that is local coverage of the type of charity activities companies often do for publicity and composed of mostly quotes from the organisations involved. This is quite a common situation for NCORP because most companies interested in that kind of thing will put out press releases very regularly but it does mean that the number of times it comes up in search results (ghits) even when confirmed to be about the subject is quite often less useful for establishing notability than many other subjects. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 I am not that familiar with CORP AfDs, although I have come across quite a few startups described in academic BLPs as part of claims for notability. I am also familiar with churnalism as that occurs with too many science blogs. Three points first:
    1. I did not know much about PT, but over the last few years I have learned. I would not class the PT employees the same as nurses, but they are certainly grossly underpaid and their role is not that different.
    2. It is a pretty bad page, clearly it was written by a novice as it does not hit the appropriate topics.
    3. As an educated guess, each location sees 40 patients per day which, with repeat visits comes to about 100 per week. When the numbers are combined I think this is a significant health care effort.
    Beyond that, the sources you quote in fact have material which I think should have been used:
    • ([1] quotes the Big10 VP which could be used
    • [3] is an award from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services which can perhaps be found.
    • [7] is from another company so is independent.
    • [10] has quotes from the Chicago Bears which could be used.
    There might be more. There is a YouTube channel here which at a minimum goes as an external link Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in theory, some of these sources could plausibly provide information in an article, but the main point is we need sources establishing notability in the first place in accordance with WP:NORG. The three numbered points don't address Wikipedia notability. As to those sources, the Chicago Bears are a football team who appear to be one of the PT company's clients, so not an independent source, that's a WP:COISOURCE. The YouTube video is published by the company's account, so clearly not an independent source either. PRNewswire (or at least the link you provided) simply regurgitates press releases by the company, so obviously not independent either. The material published by another company that you claim to be independent is actually a WP:COISOURCE because it says NextGen Healthcare, Inc…announced its extended agreement with Athletico Physical Therapy. The article hosted on the Malaysian Reserve states that it's copied from PRNewswire which means it's another regurgitated press release. Left guide (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 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 11:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit (microarchitecture)

[edit]
Fahrenheit (microarchitecture) (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 evidence that an Nvidia GPU microarchitecture by the name Fahrenheit ever existed. At that time, NVidia simply gave each chip they designed a numerical codename based on the order they designed it - NV1, NV2, NV3, NV4 and NV5. Plus, in driver code from that time (unlike celsius and later) there is no evidence of a Fahrenheit. The only provided sources are websites that seem to have automatically generated pages and are therefore not reliable, or are from at least 25 years after the fact.

What Fahrenheit actually was was a cancelled 3D API intended to merge DirectX and OpenGL: https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/nvidia_takes_the_3d_heat_with_fahrenheit (there is already a wiki article on this) - Skynorth/Starfrostmy talk page 11:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see any evidence regarding this microarchitecture, "Fahrenheit" to be made by NVIDIA ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with its deletion, it is not relevant in its current state. Bensuperpc (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HellCup

[edit]
HellCup (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)

Given sources don't show any evidence of WP:GNG, the first one being just match results and the second one being a user-editable wiki. A WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up much except more GosuGamers match results. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:27, 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 11:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Matt Hunt (journalist) (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)

Apart from the subject doing his work diligently, there is nothing that is notable about him. The sources fail WP:GNG and not enough reliable sources to proof Significant coverage. The same article was deleted few months ago for the same reason Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

at the time, there was a strong discussion for keep with an improved, more concise approach. this should be kept and allowed to expand with the list of third-party sources provided. Journowatch (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including this 1, 2 and several other references that are not even talking about the subject? Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the link for 1 is an error. Updated now. Both reference the journalist's work. Journowatch (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there was strong discussion for keep with an improved, more concise approach"
The only keep vote claimed that he's written about by and appeared on TV shows for the BBC (can't find anything to suggest this - only "Matt Hunt" on BBC were a NZ killer and a CEO of a bear NGO)
It was also from an account that was later blocked for undisclosed paid editing... MolecularPilot 10:45, 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 redirect‎ to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas. ✗plicit 11:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Pfukhro Mao

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

Article about a local school that was WP:BLARed twice to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (diff, diff). Article creator has reverted, and policy at WP:ATD-R states that "If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." I suggest the redirect is a suitable alternative to deletion. Sam Sailor 09:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas. Current version of article is completely unsourced. Procyon117 (talk) 15:40, 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 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HypeClash

[edit]
HypeClash (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. A search reveals no reliable sources. APK hi :-) (talk) 08:41, 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 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 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Krivonos Battalion

[edit]
Maxim Krivonos Battalion (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 notability per WP:N. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:40, 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 11:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Popovich

[edit]
Derek Popovich (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 independent coverage passing WP:SIGCOV. Nothing in the article seems to indicate notability either; be it one single game in the USL First Division, some games in the USL Second Division which wasn't even an WP:FPL, or being on the hall of fame of a NCAA Division III team. Geschichte (talk) 06:18, 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 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 11:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boye

[edit]
Daniel Boye (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)

During a WP:BEFORE I was not able to find a single piece of independent and significant coverage about this bridge player. At best, there were sources published by his league, that are not independent. If shown a couple of independent and significant I might change my mind and think he meets WP:SPORTCRIT, but at the moment I do not. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. We didn't get a source review I was asking for but editors have brought new sources to this discussion and there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. I hope those wanting this article Kept could spend some time improving the article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Raw

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC, there is some material online about him but none of it mentions things needed to support notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dr_vulpes
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Premium Times ~ Looks to be independent but it's hard to tell. Yes Appears to be reliable after reading a few other articles Article is 177 words and mentions that he has views on music piracy. Claims he's won awards but doesn't mention them ? Unknown
Daily Post Yes I'm not 100% sure but from reading some random articles it appears to be Yes Articles have writers and appear to be reporting properly. No Article is 125 words long and is about Mr Raw getting a shout out on Instagram ✘ No
Daily Trust Yes Appears to be, not 100% sure but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt Yes Has other articles that appear to be No Entry in the article is under his old man and is only 119 words ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 15:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dr_vulpes Thank you for your prompt reply and I am also sorry for my late reply too. The sources I provided establish that the subject is a prominent figure in Igbo rap, and successors have acknowledged this by referencing him. The citations in the article may not fully meet the criteria of WP:GNG but they should be sufficient to pass the WP:SNG for WP:CREATIVE 
     The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
    Therefore, Mr Raw is an important figure of Igbo rap creative community and he is even the one credited with creating the new concept (Igbo rap). Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : No other coverage to proof notable than being hospitalized due to a car accident. The rest news are interviews.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:11, 13 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! 06:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Ibjaja055, that seems like a good reason to keep the article but do you have any sources saying that (i.e. that he originated Igbo rap or is an important figure)? That is what I usually see asked for in these discussions, and I think it would be helpful. I see he says it in a source from the Igbo rap article but I can't find anyone other than him saying it explicitly. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles Thank you very much. This is the source of another important figure in Igbo Rap confirming that Mr Raw pioneered it Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a quote from someone else rather than the newspaper saying it directly, though (although its adjacent). This article also credits him as a pioneer, although it does seem rather promotional of its (not him) subject, but that could likely be just an enthusiastic journalist. This other article seems to have a good account of the origins of Igbo rap but is a 404 and not in the internet archive. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And actually here’s another article, oddly enough also talking about another person doing Igbo rap. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the widespread consideration as the pioneer of a music genre. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer of a what music genre.? Phyno is the Pioneer of Igbo Rap. Mr Raw was just also an igbo rapper. We cant justify a musician from naming thierself a title [37]. We need more of independent source to justify that than relying on interviews. 7G🍁 (🪓) 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@7G, What’s your source for this claim? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before Phyno, Mr. Raw was. This source confirms it, https://thenet.ng/enugu-world-phyno-become-igbolands-biggest-rap-export/. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can reply without mentioning my name. It’s then left for me to ignore you. They are more notification on my phone to attend than this @7g on Wikipedia. 7G🍁 (🪓) 21:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see a more methodical review of sources brought to this discussion. I want to be sure they aren't passing mentions and that they provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, what sort of “methodical review” are we looking at? We are using NCREATICE as a yardstick to determine notability for this subject and I think that it has been already established in this conversation? Are we neglecting NCREATIVE and focusing wholly on GNG? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, I was just referring to another source analysis table, this one for the sources that have been brought into the discussion since it started. I find them very helpful in AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As mentioned in the previous relisting, a thorough analysis of the sources is appreciated to determine if they pass GNG and other notability guidelines, along with SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject is a veteran musician in the Nigerian music industry, and is one of the earliest pioneers of Igbo rap. I'll admit that sourcing on older Nigerian acts are hard to find compared to nowadays. I will try to find reliable sources to support my statement. Off rip, Mr Raw received two nominations at The Headies 2007. The Headies is the biggest music awards in Nigeria.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Ibjaja, Mrfoogle, and Versace. Here's another source by Daily Trust which calls him a pioneer in Igbo rap. JSYK, his original name was "Nigga Raw" and most sources that identifies him by that name are actually censored online because of the word "Nigga", which is why he had to change his name to Mr Raw because of all of those censoring, using ***** to replace his name in online platforms and refusal to perform in some countries. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:49, 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 merge‎ to Great Divergence (inequality). I see rough consensus against keeping the page as a standalone article, and some support for a merger as an ATD. Views are split between this target and Causes of income inequality in the United States, but since both proposed targets are now being discussed for a merger between them, it makes more sense for a decision about the ultimate merge target be left for a discussion on the target's Talk page rather than on this AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Regression

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Great Regression (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)

Transparently political, wildly incorrect (wages have increased substantially since 1981). Lacks notability and appears to be a neologism. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is however correct on it being a neologism. If it survives AfD, I'll propose renaming to either Great Regression (Robert Reich) or Stagnating real wages for lower earning workers in the advanced economies since 1981 (Checking on google scholar, the vast majority of recent uses of "Great regression" are in completely different senses to that used by good professor Reich.) Being 'transparently political' is not a valid reason for deletion. I'd be inclined to accept it as an IAR reason if the article would be likely to increase US polarisation - but the phenomena reflects almost equally badly on both parties (Many would say worse on the Reps in the 20th century, but quite a few have argued the Dems have been more to blame in recent years, and there are global economic forces in play that neither party can easilly fully mitigate.) PS - I tweaked the wording to make clear the article if refering to real wages - thanks Nom for pointing out it could have been read as "wildly incorrect". FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I say wildly incorrect, I mean every sentence in the article is rejected by the consensus of mainstream economists and is not supported by the actual data. Real median wages are up substantially from 1980 (and more precise metrics, like median household income per head-equivalent after adjusting by PCEPI, have increased much faster). A framing that "reflects badly (or well) on both parties" is still an explicitly political framing, and in fact that's my main complaint here—the article is just uncritically repeating Robert Reich's populist talking points, despite wages, compensation, and consumption figures all disagreeing with him. If the article is kept, it should be retitled something like "Great Regression myth" and be devoted to explaining how this thesis has been thoroughly rejected by the consensus of mainstream economists. (Excluding parts like widening measures of relative inequality, where the field generally agrees that metrics like Gini are up, although there's some disagreement.) The consensus is that the period 1980-2015 was characterized by the poor getting richer at a slightly slower pace than the rich, a trend that reversed around 2015. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Only tangentially related, but if you want to understand American political trends since 1980, the most enlightening articles for me have been Center squeeze and McGovern-Fraser commission—this is pretty much exactly what social choice predicted would happen based on the changes we made to American political institutions.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining & for the tips on center squeeze etc. I can see you really know your stuff in this topic class! Sadly though, that's 100% incorrect on the mainstream consensus. When it comes to marshalling economic data, they don't come much more mainstream than Robert Reich. Just glance at the lede of his wikipage - even the conservative leaning Wall Street Journal placed him sixth on its list of Most Influential Business Thinkers . Granted, some of his favoured policy responses are a little outside of consensus, at least in US economic circles, but his command of data is masterful. It's important to note Reich was talking about workers who both live in the advanced economies and are in the lower paid brackets (especially bottom decile).
Even at the end of the 20th century, there was relatively little quality empirical work that differentiated between the pay brackets at good resolution. But between about 2000 & 2005, trailblazing work led by Tony Atkinson along with the likes of Emmanuel Saez & Thomas Piketty yield abundant data on these trends. There's likely still a few 10th rate economists who don't even know about it - but no one try's to seriously dispute the data as the empirical evidence is unassailable. (Disputing their fave policy recommends is of course another matter.)
Turing to your rebuttals, there's not really much conflict between your Fed link & what Reich said about median earnings. (He said "stagnating" not declining). The Fed graph may appear to show they're "up substantially", but a skilled analyst would immediately see the graph has misleading qualities if used to support that sort of conclusion (e.g. choice of extrema for the Y-axis). Take a look at the |Reich's Great Regression infographic. Reasonable for Reich to say overall pay growth stagnated between 1980 - 2009 when it only totalled ~8% , compared with ~ 85% between 1947-79. And much of that rise is due to gains that overwhelmingly benefit those at the top. As is clear from the part of the infographic showing that pay for the bottom quintile rose by 122% in the 1947-79 period but actually fell by 4% for 1980 - 2009.
According to various datasets, you'd be right to say 1980-2015 was characterized by the poor getting richer at a slightly slower pace than the rich - but only from a global perspective rather than looking at the advanced economies. (Losses for the poor in Global North were more than offset by gains from the more numerous poor in Global South). Interestingly, believers in social choice & pubic choice type theories normally like to claim the trend didn't reverse until more like 2018, so they can blame the shift aware from free market liberalism after Trump & Brexit etc. (And the current revised World Bank, UN & IMF figures largely back that up, though they didn’t a few years back.) But as you mention 2015, here's a good source for showing that other mainstream economists saw the data in an almost identical way to Reich. Note fig 1.2 on page 9 which shows falling incomes for the entire bottom 90% in several advanced economies! Note the report was co led by Larry Summers himself, about as centrist a mainstreamer as they come. BTW, I met with Larry in London at the launch event for that report. Even back then, I was starting to think being an activist for socialist economics was not the best use of my talents, but I accepted the invitation as I was hoping one of the inclusive capitalists there could be talked into funding an Inclusionist version of Wikipedia, where folk like RAN, Anobody & Ikip could be installed as lifelong Arbs, and policy would be set so that no useful article would every be deleted. I did managed to have a ten minute chat with the biggest moneybags there ( Glenn Hutchins ) but sadly we got stuck on talking about the chances of implementing a generous universal basic income, and never got the chance to talk to him 1-to-1 again... Anyway, now I've hopefully clarified mainstream thinking for you, perhaps you might change your vote to keep so article can be saved? Or if you remain determined to delete, perhaps you could strike "wildly inaccurate"? This article was created the legendary RAN himself, a titanic contributor whose legacy we should not want to tarnish. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess are you interested in the general phenomenon or Reich's particular take on it. The general phenomenon is already covered in Causes of income inequality in the United States. And not clear if a few articles by Reich with no secondary responses or adoption of the term is worth its own article. Earlsofsandwich (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply, but that's incorrect. The phenomena Reich was writing about is global - not confined to the US. At the time Reich published the NYT piece, it was at least confined to the advanced economies. But from about 2015 it's became truly worldwide, as even the OP admits. For example, here's a source published just today about 29 Nigerian children facing execution for protesting against the cost of living crises (i.e. falling real income.) AFAIK, this is the only article we have on the global phenomena (in as much as it's distinct from economic inequality).
At least for Wikipedia purposes, it would wrong to assume I'm mainly interested in the general phenomena. Granted, when I became an editor back in 2008 it was indeed to promote the Keynesian resurgence, which I saw at the time as a fitting policy response. But that was before I knew about WP:RGW. I'm motivated here by respectable wiki reasons - saving work added by the great RAN. Admittedly, I added various sources to this article back in 2016. But that was just as the article was under attack in it's first AfD. In 2022, editor Avatar317 removed those sources, I didnt try to contest as they didn't remove any of RAN's original work. Huh, these days I'd not be inclined to write much about this topic even if it wasn't for WP:RGW. Sometimes problems have to be allowed to get worse before they can get better, and certain challenges are best tackled sideways. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Lots of discussion but we need more editor participation and evaluation of sources, not the article's content. If the article is poorly written, that can be improved editorially, this is a discussion of whether the article subject has independent notability as verified by reliable sources, regardless of editor's opinion of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Divergence (inequality) is the better of the two targets as at least it recognises the phenomena has a global aspect rather than being all about US. Otherwise not a bad shout. The concepts are different - this article is largely about flatlining or falling living standards for those not at the top, which is a different thing to inequality. In the early 21st century, folk often had quite different attitudes to the two phenomena. Immiseration of the poorest was seen as a big problem, while rising inequality was not. E.g. After Atkinson et la revealed the problem New Labour put much energy in to trying to improve things for those at the bottom, while being intensely relaxed (Direct quote from Peter Mandelson ) about runaway earnings for those at the top. But starting about 2009, academics at least began looking at the two concepts together. From 2015 for example, various separate datasets were merged under the banner of World Inequality Database. There's a few who still argue for treating them separately - e.g. Pinker or Tyler Cowen , but they seem to be in the minority these days. If this closes as merge, then per requirement for attribution, I'd suggest content from here can be copied over with a an edit summary such as "adding content originally added by RAN". Then this article can be deleted, per the on point analyses from editor Sirfurboy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I really meant "merge with" and not "merge to", because I don't necessarily think that the target is the best place for the content to reside at, but I do think the topic is clearly notable and there's some things that could be merged, even if I don't necessarily think that any of the existing titles would be the best one (and I tagged the other article {{merge}} instead {{merge from}} for that same reason). There could potentially be multiple merge targets, but naming just one would probably be easier for the closer, and it's not the role of AFD to precisely determine the final disposition of content. I don't think what to do about the redirect is really our problem either, if people really think it shouldn't be at this title, then it could be moved. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DraftifyDelete: From the sources available this seems like nothing more than a not so newish neologism. From the sources available in the article that I can view the term is only used in passing or as the title and there is no great analysis of the concept as a thing in and of itself. Searching for the term results in similar with what sources that are available only mentioning the concept in passing. I'm not discounting that sources exist though which could be used to further demonstrate notability so I suggest draftification with the understanding that any movement to mainspace go through AFC. If notability hasn't been demonstrated by there being significant coverage in multiple reliable source after 13 years then this ought to be deleted. TarnishedPathtalk 09:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's clear that the term "Great Regression" isn't used often, and to the extent that it is used it has no generally accepted definition. Even in the sources from the article Reich uses it to refer to something that started in the 80s. Taylor for something that started in the 2010s. Earlsofsandwich (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't redirect. Per Alpha3031, there is an article, Causes of income inequality in the United States, and the proposed merge to Great Divergence (inequality) that covers the topic area of this article. A merge would be in order if there were stuff to merge, but what this article has is a few paragraphs predicated on a few newspaper articles that happen to use the term "great regression" and I don't think they add to the encyclopaedic value of the other articles. But the reason for opposing merge/redirect is primarily because, in searches, I find a primary topic for "the Great Regression" to be this book [39] which looks like it may itself be significant, as it has reviews such as [40]. The term seems to get used, at least currently, per that book, to refer to the regression we are seeing in democracies towards populism, the breakdown of the economic order [41] and such like. This is a different subject. If we redirect to articles about income inequality we will mask the primary topic. We should thus delete this page but note clearly that this in no way prejudices a recreation of the page with a different primary topic. That is, if someone can demonstrate that the book is notable, an article on the book could be recreated without prejudice. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary reason you point out is usually dealt with by WP:MADRENAME, afaik. I'm not sure we'd really need to dab for a page that doesn't even exist yet, but if there was, I'd really rather the decision be made by RFD since they're the people who'd be familiar with this kind of thing. Would have been easier if the title was "the Great Prosperity" instead since I think only Reich really used that, so we can redirect to the paragraph it has at Inequality for All (whereas the content can be merged wherever the article on the topic ends up) and not worry too much about any other topics people might be looking for. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing me to WP:MADRENAME, which I had not considered. Based on this, I would be content with a rename and then merge. What about to The Great Regression (inequality)? That retains the term used in the three newspaper articles, disambiguates it, and doesn't obscure the potential book page. Typing the Great Regression into search would bring it up as an option. If that is acceptable, I'll move my !vote to merge. I'm not convinced about punting this to RfD. Whilst they are indeed capable there too, RfD gets less participation than AfD and if we have a consensus here, and a P&G way forward per MADRENAME, I think we can satisfactorily resolve it in one go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename to The Great Regression (inequality) and then merge with Great Divergence (inequality) (first choice) although Causes of income inequality in the United States is acceptable too. Moving my !vote to merge per the above discussion and based on WP:MADRENAME. Merge, rather than redirect, as this is only viable if some content on this page, with some or all of the references, is preserved in the merge target, which would otherwise not mention it by this name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nyangon

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

Promotional resume-style bio for a non-notable economist, repeatedly moved into mainspace by quickie-autoconfirmed accounts following declines at AfC. There is no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Sources in the article are primarily the subject's own writings, plus WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios and a few low-quality promotional WP:CHURNALISM articles that appear to be based solely on interviews with the subject (see here, here; this one is explicitly marked as sponsored content). With a relatively low h-index for an economist at his stage of career, I don't see a pass of WP:NACADEMIC either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 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! 03:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google isn't revealing anything notable about him. Articles exist on Wikipedia because sufficient independent and reliable writings about the subject with no ulterior motive exist, and I don't believe Joseph is at that stage. The repeated mainspace moves are influencing my delete nomination, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "salt the page". He exists, he just doesn't pass the Wikipedia vibe check yet. why did I say that Sirocco745 (talk) 04:21, 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. ✗plicit 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Somalia

[edit]
2025 in Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this page very much falls into the category of WP:TOOSOON and likewise lacks any notability, seeing as the page currently links to no year-specific articles in Somalia (i.e. an election, a sports event, etc.) just holidays which happen every year which are already listed on the page Public holidays in Somalia. Johnson524 02:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing else in Category:2025 in Somalia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 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 redirect‎ to Hera Pheri (film series)#Hera Pheri 3 (TBA). (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Pheri 3

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hera Pheri 3 (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:NFF. Nothing in this article shows that the production itself is notable, as there is nothing about the production. Cast section is mostly unsourced, nothing about a release, nothing about filming. This should be a redirect to Hera Pheri (film series) at best. Ravensfire (talk) 02:50, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peng Lifa

[edit]
Peng Lifa (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 haven't seen this person get any independent notability other than 2022 Beijing Sitong Bridge protest Coddlebean (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and China. Coddlebean (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to present sources as raw urls for now, lest I make myself late for work again. Will try to fix during the course of the day.
    First off, Coddlebean, thanks for providing an actual deletion rationale this time. I don't think WP:BIO1E / WP:BLP1E applies here though: the criteria for the initial notability are not met, and the subject's status as a political prisoner still two years thence has generated continuing notability, per these unannotated sources:
    • "四通桥事件"两周年之际 人权组织呼吁释放彭立发. Deutsche Welle (in Chinese). 13 October 2024.
    • 权禄军：敦促中共立即释放勇士彭立发. Epoch Times (in Chinese). 16 October 2024.
    • "China: Free 'Bridge Man' Protester. Peng Lifa, Who Sparked 'White Paper' Protests, Forcibly Disappeared for 2 Years". Human Rights Watch. 11 October 2024.
    • Jane Wang (王剑虹), ed. (2024). 自由张展 [Free Zhang Zhan] (in Chinese). pp. 221–224, 472–475.[self-published source]
    Not that we require better sources for the subject's initial notability from the lockdown protests, but there are book and journal sources: isbn 9798330208418, doi:10.1017/S1054204324000054 Open access icon, doi:10.1097/YCO.0000000000000864, Xu 2024, doi:10.3390/philosophies9040118, Thireau 2023, Menegazzi 2022 pp. 2–3.
    Apologies for the garbage formatting: already late for work just from the source searches and copypasta. Keep. Folly Mox (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current sources are good enough to grant GNG. New sources pointed out in the comment above are good too wigh significant coverage. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NiftyyyNofteeeee. - Amigao (talk) 01:59, 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 delete‎. czar 02:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee McKenzie (disambiguation)

    [edit]
    Lee McKenzie (disambiguation) (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)

    Only one topic is not substantial for a disambiguation page. GilaMonster536 (talk) 01:19, 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 moved to draftspace‎ per creator request, deleted here. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 22:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratio Technologies

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

    Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. References are all either paid promotion or WP:ORGTRIV. Brandon (talk) 01:21, 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. czar 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Amistad Onus

    [edit]
    Amistad Onus (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 hoax, right? Common poverty from 6 years of University fees to be paid? Send lots of Cake or Cookies? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:09, 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. czar 02:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LMAB-Group

    [edit]
    LMAB-Group (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)

    did this company even exist? the one reference included didn't even mention it Doprendek (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. No sign of notability. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I'm pretty sure this is a hoax, or at least details of it. A company with that much revenue will have more than three google hits (including Wikipedia) for it's full name. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete for similar reasons. The business seems to not really exist and certainly not have the type of revenue the article claims. Definitely does not meet the notability criteria by any metric. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete seems to be a hoax. No matching names in NZ Companies Office records. A Google search for the supposed CEO only came up with a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:12, 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 delete‎. czar 02:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    KipTalk

    [edit]
    KipTalk (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)

    (NPP action) Three of the cited sources (Business Insider, Similarweb, and Standard) are actually about Twitter, and don't mention a "KipTalk". All other citations are to a single website, kampalareports.com. I think this lies somewhere between hoax and spam. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:36, 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 Speedy delete G4‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashish Chanchlani (YouTuber)

    [edit]
    Previous AfDs for this article:
    Ashish Chanchlani (YouTuber) (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)

    (NPP action) Recreation of Ashish Chanchlani under a disambiguated title to avoid the salting. Deleted three times for notability issues, and this version doesn't look much better. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:16, 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.