Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 30	November 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon films#Television specials. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns

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

I decided to do a source search for this film out of curiosity, as I'm interested in trying to improve another Mewtwo-centric film, Mewtwo Strikes Back, in the future. There is very little in the way of coverage. Outside of watch guides, the only sources are a single announcement from Comicbook.com about the film's manga adaptation (Which is mostly just a WP:ROUTINE news announcement), and a brief one paragraph summary in a book source. (It's self-published by a movie critic named Doug Pratt. Unsure of his reliability since Google gives me conflicting results for which Doug Pratt this is). There is also an IGN listicle that is primarily a plot synopsis, but technically has extremely sparse amounts of coverage. I'll link the three below so editors can make their own opinions:

https://comicbook.com/anime/news/pokemon-mewtwo-returns-manga-adaptation-anime/

https://www.ign.com/articles/best-pokemon-movies

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Doug_Pratt_s_DVD/vxmg-LuBTWIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Pok%C3%A9mon:+Mewtwo+Returns%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA944&printsec=frontcover

This was all I could turn up. The current sources used in the article are a press release (Which is PRIMARY) and a book source, which, from what little I could get out of the preview, just seems to be a summary of Toho published films and nothing more, with no depth of significant coverage from what I can garner. This leaves this article with maybe two sources that are significant coverage, and it could be less depending on which Doug Pratt wrote that book. There is literally no coverage on this film that I can find beyond this. Given the lack of coverage, I don't believe this film meets the GNG due to a distinct lack of SIGCOV. A viable AtD for this film is to "List of Pokémon films," where this film is listed already. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the links provided in the nomination are to 2 short reviews, so with the rest of the existing coverage, I think a page can be retained but if others disagree, redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials, and merge and add sources (indeed listed there). The film was adapted in a book series in 2019; https://natalie.mu/comic/news/334745 and, the same year, in a 3D remake https://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2140041/full/) Significant coverage: https://filmaga.filmarks.com/articles/2893/3/ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Thank you for doing a double check through JP sources to see if I missed anything. To clarify, the 3D remake is for Pokémon: Mewtwo Strikes Back – Evolution, a remake of Pokémon: The First Movie, which are entirely separate films. I mentioned the manga announcement in my nom, but the JP source is basically the same in terms of info as the Comicbook source, and is similarly just covering the work's announcement, so I'm not sure it's very helpful for showing significant coverage, as this would also fall under ROUTINE.

The significant coverage source (Filmaga) is primarily just a one paragraph synopsis. The source primarily focuses on Pokémon: The First Movie, and the paragraph on this film acts as part of a brief summary for other appearances of Mewtwo rather than acting as the main focus of the article, so I'm not sure if it falls under Wikipedia:SIGCOV at all, and even then it wouldn't help with Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, as it's mostly plot details and nothing more. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials - None of the above sources are SIGCOV (including Filmaga, it's just a short paragraph) but Rotten Tomatoes lists reviews by film critic Christopher Null and DVD Talk. Unfortunately Null's review is a permanent dead link: [1], you can also see the review listed here: [2]. So that leaves only the DVD Talk review, which isn't enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon: The First Movie as the closest thing to it. I am not convinced it passes GNG, even if the missing review were found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mika1h, the article is mostly just plot with no WP:SIGCOV. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Wikipedia articles are WP:NOTPLOT, and this needs reception and analysis to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 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 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex electrowinning

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

Poorly sourced draft that was moved into mainspace. A WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed orphan page issue AlexChig (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 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 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!} 06:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Academy

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much else found. Per WP:SCHOOLRFC existence does not imply notability. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Missouri. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom

UzbukUdash (talk) 05:07, 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 keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMX Mail

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

A before struggles to find any in-depth coverage in independent sources fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GMX was a very popular email service in Germany in the early 2000s. Horst-Dieter Radke's 2004 book GMX: Mail und mehr is entirely about GMX webmail, and several other Markt+Technik-published books have shorter sections on GMX. ZDNet Deutschland reported on security problems and missing email in 2000. It'd be worth checking archives for German computer magazines com! and c't as well, if anyone's got access to them (coverage on IA is spotty, but it appears that c't 2011 issue 5 had a discussion of GMX's mail services for mobile phones, for example). Adam Sampson (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would suggest to rewrite it so that it is clear that GMX is a web portal and GMX mail just one of its services. Today, it is primarily known as an email provider with decreasing relevance but originally (and actually still today) it provided news, etc. too. The article definitely needs more reliable and third party sources, but I can find plenty and I would have been surprised if it were otherwise. Killarnee (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GMX mail is still important in security circles as one of the few remaining whitelisted anonymous email providers, and was used by several influential cypherpunks such as Satoshi Nakamoto 135.180.49.239 (talk) 04:05, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Oxfordshire Historic Churches Trust

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

Could not find third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. Of the 2 sources, first one is its own website, the other is dead. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – added information and references for notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources are mostly thin from the ones I can read but provide more evidence of notability to the organization. Keep rationale here mostly WP:HEY. Recon rabbit 16:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to West Virginia folklore. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of West Virginia cryptids

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

One good source for mothman, others are WBOY-TV and a local station's site w/ news. Only list of cryptids for a state, don't see categories or lists by country. Removed some sources before nominating. fiveby(zero) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Mythology. fiveby(zero) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly, *Merge to West Virginia folklore (as this is slightly more isefull overall. ~~but this could be useful~~ as I was not even aware the Snallygaster was a real myth, so it has been informative, I suppose a push Merge with list of cryptids.But I can see why a more local list could have use. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no particular need for there to be other articles or lists by state in order for this one to exist; others could just as easily be created if they're supported by reliable sources. The question is whether reliable sources for the creatures on this list exist, not whether they're currently cited. There will obviously be lots of sources for Mothman and the Flatwoods Monster, not as sure about the others. But I'm pretty sure a search will turn up news articles about some of them, and I've seen books on West Virginia folklore that presumably mention more than these two—I seem to recall one with the Flatwoods Monster on the cover—and it's not a requirement that sources be available over the internet. A trip to the library may be in order, but remember, there's no deadline to improve articles, and that's what this is: an article in need of improved sourcing, not one that's impossible to source. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore should go into West Virginia folklore and better lists would might be folklore creatures by country or maybe even state. That is a big problem with some of these articles, they turn 'folklore' into 'cryptids' and use and attract a lot of dubious sources to do it. Anyway made some more edits to the list article. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of your numerous edits—besides nominating the article for deletion—have been deletion of material from the article: around 2,000 bytes so far. It looks like you're attempting deletion piece-by-piece so that you can make the argument that there's not enough left to keep! That's not how this should work. Did you look for sources, or just delete the ones that didn't meet your personal inclusion criteria, and then all of the items that were no longer sufficiently supported by the remaining sources? I note that in one case, you deleted an item because the cited source didn't call it a "cryptid". It may be that this article is mis-titled, and it would be better called something like "monsters of West Virginia" or "monsters and creatures of folklore from West Virginia". That's not an argument for deletion—but it seems to be providing the basis for shrinking the list in support of deleting it! Chopping up a short article that you yourself nominated for deletion—within a day of its creation, and without any attempt to identify issues that might be addressed by means short of deletion, or sources that could be added—seems like a poor way of dealing with a new article. P Aculeius (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was attempting deletion by AfD no? Everyone can see my edits in the history and disagree or not—and edit the article. I kinda remember letting everyone know i had made edits, lets see: Removed some sources before nominating and just above Anyway made some more edits to the list article. I did not really look for sources, thought it hardly worth the effort. Did note an ISBN in an edit summary if anyone wants to try and find it. There is one source there which collects a West Virginia list of cryptids. I nominated, as i thought i had said in the above, because it was a one-of-a-kind when there are no country lists even. There's some disagreement as to whether there should be a main list at all.

It's not my "personal inclusion criteria" but my best interpretation of other peoples. If you disagree, go revert. I've dug through plenty of sources looking at cryptids and argued to keep occasionally. Just don't like calling a deer a horse. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true this is a first-of-its-kind list for cryptids specifying a state, but it does create a useful resource and fits in with other research info about West Virginia. See Category:West Virginia-related lists, and Category:West_Virginia_history-related_lists. 5Q5|^✉ 13:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Virginia folklore. These aren't notable things requiring their own list, they're just ghost stories. Reywas92^Talk 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (the sources at least) to West Virginia folklore. This was an unnecessary spinoff that doesn't serve any purpose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., weak support. There may be a world in which this list could be salvaged. As it stands, tThe list itself is not clearly notable and the flurry of recent edits have led to a massive removal of items and references. These removals are appropriate. I'm not too concerned about the reliability of a local TV news station for individual cryptids, although it additional sources would be stronger. The bigger issues is the notability of the list itself. I also weakly ~~oppose outright~~support selectively merging with West Virginia folklore on the basis of the concern about editors blurring the line between folklore and cryptids. Individual cases or references that warrant inclusion can be manually incorporated into WV folklore.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amending to full support for deletion after further consideration of the comments made by others and issues on pages for related topics. My top concern is the lack of notability for the topic itself. A close second is the lack of selection criteria for this list specifically and the lack of clear definition of cryptid generally.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Merge anything of value into West Virginia folklore without the use of pseudoscientific terminology like cryptid. These are all entities from folklore — the cryptozoology coat of paint is WP:PROFRINGE — and we already have the extremely dubious list of cryptids with no criteria. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doing a WP:GTEST I found these mainstream sources (including Skeptical Inquirer) all using the term "cryptid" in their reporting on West Virginia. None is currently used in the article as I write this: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. 5Q5|^✉ 12:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 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 keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fadaei

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

An article that was moved from draftspace by the creator. The sources in the article are of poor quality, and a WP:BEFORE search comes up with nothing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Iran. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fadaei is one of the famous political Iranian rapper, but in Iran news sources are routine event recaps, And they don't cover the political rappers while the rappers should be arrested or under sentenced to death or in order to unkind them

AmirX0213 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirX0213 What you're saying is, regardless of whether or not Fadaei qualifies for an article, it's a complex political situation. Right? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because hipHop music in Iran is illegal and The News source in Iran is Under control of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ,but Fadaei is notable as he was one of the founder Moltafet music group and these days he manage this group and as a rapper his got General notability guideline AmirX0213 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirX0213 Both for better and for worse, people can only be notable with significant mentions in multiple, independent/third-party, secondary sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses sure, by the way he got some sources which I mentioned them on his references and specially like bbc and he his highly searched on google. And in notable farsi sources they tried to unkind him. I didn't mentioned them in references AmirX0213 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirX0213 Yeah, it seems that you're trying to add new sources, at least. I might look at the references later. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses thank you so much, at least 8 iranian notable sources added AmirX0213 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources can be impvrove and he's notable as well

Farsadx (talk) 07:07, 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!} 23:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fadaei can be notable with significant mentions in multiple, independent/third-party, secondary sources too. please check here, here in two languages on BBC News was talked about his music. and other notable iranian sources which I mentioned them in article recently.

AmirX0213 (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AmirX0213 Harold Krabs (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Okonkwo

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

An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 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} 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject appears notable and subject of discussion in national dailies here, here and could pass [Wp:GNG|GNG] with wide coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are extremely weak -- promotional puff pieces, primary source interviews, trivial mentions, etc. I'm not seeing anything to qualify for notability. The sources offered by the weak keep !voter are (1) a puff piece based solely on an interview with the subject and (2) an unbylined article that reads like an official bio and includes facts that are likely to be sourced directly from the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and Dclemens. Sources present and in searches I made does not help to establish the general notability criteria nor does the topic qualify for any subject-specific criterias. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:16, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mental Health Association

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

Marked for notability concerns since December 2022. I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, China, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything for this organization. The sourcing used is primary, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Yong-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is a brief dumping ground. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find this Ri Yong-chol significantly covered in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSPORT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Singh Rana

AfDs for this article:

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

I think WP:GYMNAST has been updated since last AfD. Simply competing in World Championships is not enough. Needs significant coverage and only a directory listing is provided. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and India. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find reputable sources which discuss this subject in depth, fails WP:GNG. also he participated in international championship but not won medal and also he didn’t have significant coverage in news media to get notability without medal. hence fails, WP:NGYMNAST TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Really not sure how to approach this one as I'm an American with an English-speaking background while the subject is based out of India and this strikes me as potential WP:BIAS. It seems like there are several, several English-language mentions of his gymnastics which can be easily searched up (this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.), but none in English that go in depth. I'd have to believe, but do not have the current ability to search and verify, that there are likely many more sources in the subject's native sources. Per the previous rationale, as nom has shared, WP:NGYMNAST is just a suggestion and GNG is what dominates here. In my personal opinion, with the sheer amount of mentions in English of this subject, I'd lean towards the weak keep to give the status quo the benefit of the doubt here. GauchoDude (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources identified above are purely routine announcements and offer zero depth, with ToI additionally being unreliable for BLPs. Athletes at this level basically always get hundreds of mentions without necessarily receiving any SIGCOV. I'm not convinced there will be further coverage in local sources, and anyway, per SPORTCRIT, this bio is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV to remain a standalone so any presumption of meeting GNG is moot. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantial. Previously it only mentioned the 2009 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships with one source and this version still does the same. Given this, a G4 deletion may be warranted. Has the subject competed in other international competitions? My search showed the subject also participated in the 2010 and 49th Artistic Gymnastics World Championships but simply competing doesn't establish notability. All sources such as 1, 2 and 3 only give brief mentions without any in-depth coverage.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of The Hesperides

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

No significant, independent coverage found; the sources in the article are either unrelated to the painting or come from the Memorial Art Gallery where the painting is. This is one of several borderline-notable or non-notable articles created without any outside review as part of a WikiEdu class at the University of Rochester to publish articles about their paintings. I suggest a redirect to M. Louise Stowell. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing this and draftifying the article; draftifying is a better option so as not to disturb the review portion of the WikiEdu class. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:27, 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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 22:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Pan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, a scholar without a named chair, prestigious honors, or other apparent inclusion criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN, I missed WP:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Pan (professor) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 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. asilvering (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of India as a political entity

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

Seems a synthetic topic, potentially doubling as a content fork. None of the cited sources are comparative as the article purports itself to be, and do not otherwise indicate the material as something other than an original synthesis. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thr article is basically about an contrast to how people view Historical India as a region.

It points out political entities in the Indian subcontinent which called themselves India in any language or form.

Like Mughals, Mauryas,Etc.

Could you tell me which sources are wrong as you are saying, i will surely sort them out and correct the JingJongPascal (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create an article juxtaposing whichever elements according to whatever criteria you want if sources do not themselves do that: that is original synthesis, a form of original research. If there are reliable sources that themselves compare and contrast these polities according to your criteria then you have to present and cite them, otherwise you are using sources that are focused on each individual polity to draw conclusions and observations that none of them individually make themselves.. Remsense ‥ 论 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are wrong?

Each source is representing what they were called natively.

If your problem is with my articles title of India as a political entity and if you think this does not draw conclusions then maybe we can discuss for alternative name of the article? JingJongPascal (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy I linked multiple times. Again, the problem regards the subject of the article itself, which seems to be entirely synthetic on your part. You can't make an article juxtaposing whatever information you want, even if each individual piece of information is sourced. I would not be allowed to publish History of political entities whose names begin with J because that is not itself a subject established or attested in sources, even if Japan, Jin, and Jalalabad are individually. By putting them together in an article, you are making connections that are not substantiated: that is original synthesis. Remsense ‥ 论 03:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will support a deletion here since problem with this article is that its just baseless, India's history as a region is already covered in History of India and as a nation state in History of Republic of India.This article is just unnecessary and useless.Also, per @Remsense's arguments.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Remsense said there's no sources discussing this topic in a way that would differentiate it from the similar one found in India#History. Country articles contain a history section that goes back further than whatever their current political system is. France#History starts way before 1958, for example. All of the major groups and events that would be in this article would no doubt have a place in India#History - and so far as I can tell they already do. Wizmut (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will stress the fundamental criteria seem particularly arbitrary: why not just "large states in historical India", if not because this particular collection is meant to illustrate a more specific conception of the history? Sources would need to exist that support and analyze such a conception. Remsense ‥ 论 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not here trying to lay down or advocate for certain historical views. We are supposed to reflect what others have written. Unless there are sources which substantially cover this topic as framed here, the page trying to do something outside of the remit of an encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. over generalized title as well UzbukUdash (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i understand all arguments ,so can we maybe work on alternative name of the article? Or maybe merging it with another article? JingJongPascal (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could change the article's name to "Historical usage of India" or "Historical usage of India as a political entity"?

That woud fit better JingJongPascal (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand, as per above the issue is not with the article title, but with what the article is actually about. Its content remains exactly the same, juxtaposing subtopics to reflect an emphasis that you have seemingly invented yourself. Why would a different article title solve this problem, as I described above? Remsense ‥ 论 00:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and the discussion above from other voters. RangersRus (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a complete mess of original research, soap-boxing, and essay-writing. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Skatepark of Tampa. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Pro (skateboard competition)

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

Non-notable skateboard competition. GilaMonster536 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skatepark of Tampa which is the venue where the event is held. I spent a fair bit of time searching and came upon mostly brief mentions of the event itself. The sources I found tend to carry more discussion of the venue, and the broader historical/cultural phenomenon of skateboarding in Tampa. The only real exception is page 54 of this book, but that's just one source, which means this topic seems to fail WP:NEVENT on its own merit. Left guide (talk) 03:10, 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. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Bertez

AfDs for this article:

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

Refunded after soft deletion, but the subject still fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt seems to be made since the REFUND to update the article and large section are still unsourced. What sources are there are made up of routine annoucements and a small history of he paper which is a passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No secondary sources on a WP:BLP that need high quality soures that are not there. scope_creep^Talk 05:17, 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. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Papian

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

No significant coverage, as only two 'news' style sources seem to exist. The first is a 138-word article discussing a product he's selling [15] and the other is a promotional article in Lepota & Zdravlje [16] All the other sources are his blog, dead links, and one listing of a conference appearance.

The actual text is full of gems like "In 2004 Ruben devoted his time to understanding esoterica and hidden abilities of space and matter" and "In 2015 Ruben discovered metaphysical abilities of wood cells^{[citation needed]}" Wizmut (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Armenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the article used to be worse than it is now, it is irredeemably promotional with sizeable WP:V issues. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, NOT enough intext citations UzbukUdash (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks adequate RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1881 America's Cup

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

Insufficient sources, fails in WP:EVENTS, and there is a history of a copyvio which is addressed (1253102988) and there is no categories too WP:CAT. Royiswariii (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Royiswariii (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The America's Cup by Roland Folger Coffin and The America's Cup Races by Herbert Lawrence Stone both have WP:SIGCOV of the event. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 23:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The defence was notable as Canadian attempt. Sufficient information for a stub remains after the copyright material removed and improvements relatively trivial. Some such as categorisation to Americas Cup should be done if agreed keep. There are even senior administrators who follow the cup I might be able to interest in improving as they follow the modern version of the cup. They simply will not know of this proposed deletion as I only stumbled across it due to notification of copyright infringement which I sometimes monitor, not any past contribution. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories added and copyvio long addressed. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. need more sourcing UzbukUdash (talk) 05:16, 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 no consensus‎. I'll leave this as it is (a redirect) for now, but be aware that In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault is already proposed for deletion. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, and a variation on Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. It happened, yes, but what is the lasting impact? It's just another protest against a politician, though in a somewhat original format, which gave it 5 minutes of fame. Fram (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give possible time for improvements and to wait for potential future coverage. Not ready for main space.

-1ctinus📝🗨 17:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it should be merged with Statue of Donald Trump (Portland, Oregon), which is a copy of the same piece. Not sure why two pages were made for it. The same artist apparently also made The Donald J. Trump Enduring Flame and January 6 United States Capitol attack memorial so they could all be merged together since sources like [17] cover them together – there's a lot of temporary protest art that that receives brief news coverage but doesn't individually need standalone articles (also Crooked and Obscene). Or merge to Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture#Art. Certainly not make as many one-line articles as fast as possible – that's what draft space is for! Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm not sure Wikipedia should keep any of them. Please see There’s no such thing as bad publicity (i.e. things like this keep his name and image before the pubic). On the other hand, I don't see Wikipedia guidelines on what to do about this. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Philadelphia and Portland statues are similar, but not the same. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[18] says "An identical one showed up in Portland, Oregon earlier this week". They're not as identical as bronze casts, but they are still functionally enough the same that there is no reason for two separate articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable temporary art installation. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged page as redirect. Since there are now more sources covering both statues together, including some using "In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault" as the title for both, I've redirected the Philadelphia page and moved the Portland page so both can be covered under the official title. I've left the AfD tag on the redirect to avoid removing a template inappropriately. I request to have the redirect page kept (because it serves a purpose) and propose closing this discussion as moot. I've been bold here but hope this compromise / solution works for others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merged page as redirect

UzbukUdash (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merged page as redirect as long as article it points to is accepted in main space Nnev66 (talk) 11:49, 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 speedy delete‎. WP:A11'd. asilvering (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Core Feelings Frameworks

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

Tagged for CSD A11 by User:Fram, but removed by IP. Most likely the IP is the original article creator? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hits at all for "Core Feelings Frameworks" on Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar. Either a hoax or invented by the article creator, but should be speedy deleted in any case. Fram (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I've speedied this Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here (https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&sca_esv=52644926a031314b&q=Core+Feelings+Frameworks&tbm=bks&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0AbzhUJjXv6jRup8eVc0BvPyH5PazCaW205cG-Bd0in0SeU-Q4GVbDidOCCAlv8ddwnuh7lPh3aYhqMJdmlhqKO8rDglsPvyMjbq9rCVLJ_yLz05yoyCj0IoTno93uYggnncrva_zsbl3H2JwyDPuE0k8J4vY2YBA3Frocevnw4Zq1k8p7rDLwC7ext5SJbueHOkPBjAnWMao9oT43nuTKNuQGq3A&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPrfjUk7mJAxUhEGIAHUY6LTQQ0pQJegQIUBAB&biw=1738&bih=819&dpr=1.1) there are plenty hits on google books for Core Feelings Frameworks, this subject have been investigated by Paul Ekman and many other respected researchers, so it will be a very good article on Wikipedia. The deletion suggestion would just shrink our knowledge. Chelky (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are books which use the words "core", "feelings", and/or "Frameworks" separately. There are no books or other sources at all about "Core Feelings Frameworks" as one subject[19]. Fram (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I agree. There is an article in Wikipedia for this, named Emotion classification, where the information should be merged. I haven't seen that after searching. Chelky (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I just declined the A11, not because I think it doesn't apply, but because I suspect there is some reference fabrication and possible spamming going on here and would appreciate some confirmation on that before jettisoning this to the void. (Please ping, my other notifs are broken.) -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all editors and administrators that have some honesty and respect for humanity. I always thought that Wikipedia is a place for knowledge to grow and not to limit to certain narratives. Please see how User:Fram had opened this case with the allegation that this topic is a hoax with no hits even on Google, now I verified that not only it DOES appear on google, but also Wikipedia itself has already fully recognized this topic solely (and please, don't repeat that silly argument that they use different keywords). One page was already mentioned, which is Emotion classification and the other one - which I'm adding now - is named Discrete emotion theory. I see no request that those two pages should be merged, although they probably should, since the topic discussed is the same.

Here, I would respect a request that the article should be merged in one of the two old articles, as I have added myself the mergeto tag. But why User:asilvering starts here with fabrication accusation etc. sounds very odd to me. There are standard editings that are always be made, and I see no need for such alarms.Chelky (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that @Chelky, I misread a comment of yours involving a spam link. I'm now pretty confident that you weren't spamming on purpose. However, I'm also pretty confident that the speedy deletion was the right choice for this, so I'll close this deletion discussion and come by your talk page in a bit to give you some answers/advice. -- asilvering (talk) 01:55, 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 redirect‎ to Pyongra Line. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yangdok station

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

No refs on the page for many years. RS from NK are difficult, but I don't see how we determine if (or whether any of the) railway stations are notable. I'm inclined to think that none of them are, but that would involve deleting or redirecting quite a few WP pages. JMWt (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Korea. JMWt (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pyongra Line as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The korean article has a few sources, but if they are RS or not I'm not sure if they are RS. Jumpytoo Talk 04:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. [20] and [21] verify existence which is sufficient for a redirect. I wasn't able to find anything in-depth, but my search was limited to English and detailed sources are most likely to be in Korean. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 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 redirect‎ to James Morrison (jazz musician)#Morrison Brothers. asilvering (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Morrison (drummer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and subject specific guidelines. No secondary sources exist, only his biography and portfolio. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Australia. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to James Morrison (jazz musician)#Morrison Brothers. Two relevant references are given there, including this one, so the claim that No secondary sources exist is dubious. But while I'm hopeful that this article should and will be reinstated in the future, I don't have time to do the relevant research right now. It would be mainly and perhaps entirely print sources, so unfortunately it's a valid nomination. Happy if others would like to do the relevant research. Andrewa (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect. I see the sources you're talking about, but I don't think they establish notability. The article seems to be about the band's performance, with passing mentions to him. If I'm wrong, please correct me; AfD is not my forte. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Morrison (jazz musician)#Morrison Brothers: as WP:ATD per Andrewa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junya Higashi

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

This looks like a WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT failure. In the Japanese Wikipedia, all sources are non-independent (published by the subject's employers). The claim to notability, playing 113 minutes in Japan's first league and 18 matches in the third league, is weak. Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Japan. – The Grid (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoya Seita

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

This looks like a WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT failure. In the Japanese Wikipedia, all sources are non-independent (published by the subject's employers) except for two dead at-s.com links. The claim to notability, playing 60 minutes in Japan's second league and 201 minutes in the third league, is extremely weak. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Japan. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Koppelman

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited in this article obviously fall very much short of establishing notability, and BEFORE finds only the usual social media etc. profiles plus a couple of interviews but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This dates from the Wild West days of Wikipedia where next to no standards were applied in order to create a broad base of articles. Fails WP:BIO. WP:V. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PRODUCER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian White (author)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. From what I can see, no secondary, non-self published sources exist — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United Kingdom. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply fails WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's a little bit on him here [22]. His books evidently didn't do well, but they were published by Penguin, so I'd expect at least a little more than "nothing". -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Berezin

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

Fail WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. As far as I have looked, the only sources that reference him are football databases. No secondary sources. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Russia. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Piene

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

This article was created by and most contributions are from single-purpose accounts. One of these is clearly the artist herself; I wonder if the others have conflicts of interest. One of them (Harajuku650) dropped the problem tags, though perhaps they felt they had addressed the flagged issues? It still sounds less than neutral. This article was tagged for notability issues, and I'm still unclear on whether it demonstrates notability. One editor also suggested it might be easier to delete and start from scratch than rewrite to eliminate the POV content. -- Beland (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Getty ULAN has a biography and list of exhibits [23], this would seem to meet artist notability. The works reviewed (discussed near the end of the article) also show critical notice, which is what's needed for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, England, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is a mess. I started cleaning up the embedded links, changing them into inline citations. Most are garbage. I can't decide whether to skip the clean-up and just do a source analysis. Leaning towards rewriting this completely. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her work has been shown in major institutions, some having acquired pieces for their collections; coverage exists and some is on the page, so that, although the page needs cleanup, an article about her may be retained imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article re-written to Wikipedia standards. This is a notable artist. Removed cruft and weird sourcing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since initial nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable artist, per public collections Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 09:56, 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvad

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and India. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for a writer who has gotten coverage - but in unreliable sources. The India Times was once a good source, but now it’s deprecated. The added sources are a wall of puffery. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indian Times/Times of India is not deprecated per Bearian, see WP:TOI. This subject clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR for having the national award under their belt, for creating a story which a notable film is based on, and for having coverages of themselves and their work in reliable sources. Everything I just said is obvious from assessing the article without doing a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleted under WP:CSD G5 criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tiruvadi

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

Non-notable battle. None of the mentioned sources treat it as a notable battle. The reliable ones only make passing mention. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. – The Grid (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asoz Rashid

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD, and all sources given date from before the last AfD, so no indication that he became more notable in the meanwhile. Same issue as before, with the sources primarily being about iQ Group rather than the CEO himself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the same issues are present as those in the article that was previously deleted. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - horrible sourcing. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Kashmir. ✗plicit 14:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa Bharti Women's College, Srinagar

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

Completely unsourced article about a local "branch" of a "large educational complex" that doesn't have an article about the overarching entity (or at least not at the "Vishwa Bharti Women's Welfare Institution" name indicated by this article; if it does have one at a different name, I don't have the depth of knowledge about India needed to find it). As always, educational institutions are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to have GNG-worthy coverage to support an article with -- and if the parent institution isn't notable enough for an article, then a "branch" obviously can't be more notable than its parent entity. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Kashmir: As the college’s website claims affiliation with the University of Kashmir, the majority of Indian colleges and schools with their own articles fail our notability guidelines, and the same applies to this college. No significant coverage sources were found. GrabUp - Talk 14:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Kashmir: As it was noted by GrabUp above that the college is affiliated with University of Kashmir, I too believe that it should be redirected to UoK rather than deleted. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Kashmir it is interesting to note that the article has been unsourced since it was created in 2014. The funny thing is that it has had a decade to be improved, yet not a single source has been added. Online research has revealed that the institution exists, but the sources do not meet NORG standards.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanel Dsouza: Before 2017, these types of institutions were presumed notable if their existence was confirmed, but this changed with an RFC in 2017. GrabUp - Talk 14:26, 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 speedy delete‎. Deleted under WP:CSD G5 crtieria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Umberkhind

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

Non-notable battle. None of the mentioned sources treat it as a notable battle. The reliable ones only make passing mention. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom

UzbukUdash (talk) 05:32, 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. ✗plicit 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Peters

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

Neither of these people are notable enough to have articles, and no article links to this disambiguation page. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The correct redirects would be Jade-Lianna Peters and Jade Mayjean Peters. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Jade Peters would be a valid redirect for either of them (as well as the longer redirects), so the dab page is useful. PamD 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But one is a redlink and the other a redirect. We don't need a disambig for that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:15, 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 23:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biratnagar Kings

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

Teams that compete in a barely notable tournament, so don't need separate team articles. One team from the NPL was already redirected after AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokhara Avengers- though editors keep reverting that redirect against consensus)- and the same non notability applies to these other NPL teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating other NPL team:

Keep: This team already participated in the Dhangadi Premier League and have many coverage article about it in Nepal.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage exists, please add it. Everything on these articles so far is WP:ROUTINE. Just because they've competing in another league, that doesn't mean we need a separate team article, unless they meet WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Nepal Premier League is notable, but the teams in it are not. AA (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sporting franchises that sign international players are notable on their own. MurrayBird (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — MurrayBird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how WP:GNG works, and WP:NOTINHERITED applies to this argument too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Shrug02 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : NPL Franchise teams are popular internationally and many internationally known players are signed by these players. User: NiseEdits (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:ILIKEIT vote violating WP:NOTINHERITED. I hope the closing admin realises that none of these keep votes have mentioned WP:GNG or attempted to provide substantial reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any sources to assert notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not pass WP:GNG. All of the sources are WP:ROUTINE none of them are notable, and there's no WP:SIGCOV. I agree with the nom's WP:NOTINHERITED argument as well - the fact that some of the players are notable does not qualify the team for a standalone article. DesiMoore (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:11, 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. There is consensus among participants that their knighthood helps them pass WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Drummond Anderson (1886–1968)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I haven't been able to WP:V the facts on the page and not seen much to suggest that this colonial administrator meets the notability standards for inclusion. I would be interested to hear what others can find. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People) Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If as claimed, is a knight, would be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors). Djflem (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 (knighthood) and (essentially) 3 (portrait held at National Portait Gallery). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, references have now been added so that all information can be verified. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly meets the WP:ANYBIO criteria. I agree with my fellow editor, Goldsztajn. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ageyev

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Needs secondary sources about the subject of the article. --Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

If the article is not notable, it isn't great to have it on Wikipedia. But, is the person notable? if WP:SIGCOV is violated, it does not need a wikipedia article. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the many hundreds of NN hockey articles created by Dolovis, and for which he was TBANned from new article creation. Even before participation standards were deprecated, there's no actual evidence that this ephemeral player ever played in the top-flight. Odds that even a dedicated search would not turn up SIGCOV for a fleeting career in the Russian minor leagues. Ravenswing 20:13, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xiao-i

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

does not clearly demonstrate the company's notability through significant independent sources, which is a key requirement for Wikipedia. Much of the information appears to rely on primary or promotional sources, lacking in-depth third-party coverage that would confirm its broader impact or importance. Additionally, the article may contain promotional language, which violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding another FindSources for an alternate company name which is used in coverage of the case with Apple:

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Journal articles:
  1. "小i机器人为每个人的生活带来改变" [Xiao-i Robot brings changes to everyone's life]. 信息对抗技术 [Software Industry and Engineering] (in Chinese) (2): 33–37. 2013. ISSN 2097-163X. Retrieved 2024-10-28 – via CQVIP [zh].
    The abstract notes: "小i机器人成立于2001年，长期专注于智能机器人技术研究和开发，在自然语言处理和人机交互技术方面已经获得了多项国家发明专利。业务涉及通信、金融、政府、电子商务、智能家电和汽车等行业，经过十多年实际项目的不断验证和优化，小帆器人在智能人机交互（文本、语音等）的全渠道整合应用上领先中国，已成为中国智能机器人第一品牌。"
    From Google Translate: "Xiao-i was founded in 2001 and has long been focusing on the research and development of intelligent robot technology. It has obtained a number of national invention patents in natural language processing and human-computer interaction technology. Its business involves communications, finance, government, e-commerce, smart home appliances and automobiles. After more than ten years of continuous verification and optimization of actual projects, Xiaofan Robot leads China in the omni-channel integrated application of intelligent human-computer interaction (text, voice, etc.) and has become the No. 1 brand of intelligent robots in China."
  2. "由"小i机器人"案引发的探讨" [Discussion triggered by the "Xiao-i" case]. 知识产权法研究 [Intellectual Property Right Law Research] (in Chinese) (1): 63–74. 2017. Retrieved 2024-10-28 – via CQVIP [zh].
    The abstract notes: "从苹果公司向专利复审委员会申请无效宣告伊始,'小i机器人'案历经一审、二审,北京市高级人民法院最终撤销一审判决。对于该案中所涉及的专利说明书充分公开标准及该领域技术人员的判断标准也引起了各方关注。该专题以'东方知识产权沙龙第27讲'内容为基础,以公开充分为切入点,对专利文件的体系化理解进行梳理与反思,并围绕技术类案件之特点进行讨论,以期更多人关注专利制度与相关实践"
    From Google Translate: "Since Apple applied to the Patent Reexamination Board for invalidation, the "Xiao-i" case has gone through the first and second trials, and the Beijing High People's Court finally revoked the first-instance judgment. The full disclosure standard of the patent specification involved in this case and the judgment standard of technicians in this field have also attracted attention from all parties. This topic is based on the content of "Lecture 27 of the Oriental Intellectual Property Salon", takes full disclosure as the starting point, sorts out and reflects on the systematic understanding of patent documents, and discusses the characteristics of technical cases, in order to attract more attention to the patent system and related practices."
  3. "能互动改变生活——小i机器人亮相软博会智能机器人技术引关注" [Intelligent interaction changes life - Xiao-i debuts at Soft Expo, intelligent robot technology attracts attention]. 软件产业与工程 [Software Industry and Engineering] (in Chinese) (6): 6–7. 2014. Retrieved 2024-10-28 – via CQVIP [zh].
    The article notes: "5月29日～31日，由工业和信息化部、国家发展和改革委员会、... 作为上海团队的代表企业，小i机器人（上海智臻网络科技有限公司）携带其最新的实体服务机器人亮相展会,吸引了大批观众现场互动，其中不乏领导、专家及各大媒体，成为软博会展馆中众人瞩目的焦点。"
    From Google Translate: "From 29 to 31 May 29, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the National Development and Reform Commission,... As the representative enterprise of the Shanghai team, Xiao-i (Shanghai Zhizhen Network Technology Co., Ltd.) brought its latest physical service robot to the exhibition, attracting a large number of audiences to interact on the spot, including leaders, experts and major media, and became the focus of everyone's attention in the exhibition hall of the Software Expo."
2. Books:
  1. Liu, Fangdong 刘芳栋; Lin, Wei 林伟; Zhu, Jianliang 朱建良; Zhang, Xinliang 张新亮 (2016). 机器人+:正在席卷全球的机器人革命 [Robots: Robot Is Over the World's Robot Revolution] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Railway Publishing House [zh]. ISBN 978-3-16-148410-0. Retrieved 2024-10-28 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "小i机器人是由上海智臻网络科技有限公司开发的,后来在交通银行的支持下,小i机器人率先被应用于银行业,在银行大厅中担任起了大堂经理,可以通过语音功能与客户进行自然的沟通,帮助客户解答有关银行业务方面的疑问。小i机器人除了被应用于实体机器人Ina外,还被应用在了负责接待的机器人Nao、智能扫地机器人及一系列的智能家居产品上,而且它们都有一个共同的属性——服务机器人。"
    From Google Tranlate: "The Xiao-i robot was developed by Shanghai Zhizhen Network Technology Co., Ltd. Later, with the support of Bank of Communications, the Xiao-i robot was first used in the banking industry and served as a lobby manager in the bank lobby. It can communicate with customers naturally through voice functions and help customers answer questions about banking business. In addition to being used in the physical robot Ina, the Xiao-i robot is also used in the reception robot Nao, the smart sweeping robot and a series of smart home products, and they all have a common attribute - service robots."
  2. 人工智能实践录 [Artificial Intelligence Practice] (in Chinese). Beijing: Posts & Telecommunications Press [zh]. 2020. ISBN 978-7-115-50553-8. Retrieved 2024-10-28 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "案例31:小i机器人—12345城市管理自流程系统小i机器人与贵阳市人民政府共同打造的国家级“人工智能大数据云服务平台”,发挥贵阳大数据综合试验区数据基础优势和小i在人工智能关键技术(自然语言处理、深度语义理解、知识表示和推理、语音识别、机器学习和分析决策等)、行业应用积累和人才方面的优势,并将平台的核心能力与贵阳政务治理、"
    From Google Translate: "Case 31: Xiao-i - 12345 City Management Self-Process System The national-level "AI Big Data Cloud Service Platform" jointly built by Xiao-i and Guiyang Municipal People's Government leverages the data foundation advantages of Guiyang Big Data Comprehensive Experimental Zone and Xiaoi's advantages in key AI technologies (natural language processing, deep semantic understanding, knowledge representation and reasoning, speech recognition, machine learning and analytical decision-making, etc.), industry application accumulation and talent, and integrates the core capabilities of the platform with Guiyang government governance,"
3. Analyst reports:
  1. Lantier, Brian (2024-08-28). "Xiao-I Corporation-ADS" (PDF). Zacks Investment Research. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-10-28. Retrieved 2024-10-28.
    The analyst report notes: "As we have noted in the past, Xiao-I has made several attempts to demonstrate the potential of its AI tools by integrating its chatbot technology into everyday products. To date, we have seen these tools deployed for a “smart” baby crib to monitor sleep patterns or a “smart” speaker that could act as a virtual therapist. In our opinion, these products were principally built to demonstrate use cases for the company’s technology, but they did not have broad commercial application and the cost to develop hardware would make them cost-prohibitive for Xiao-I to bring to market."
    The analyst report notes: "Investors may recall that in our initiation report we briefly mentioned that in 2012, the company sued a subsidiary of Apple for patent infringement related to Apple’s Siri tool. Xiao-I alleges that Siri infringes on its intelligent assistant patent. The company updated that lawsuit in 2020 seeking damages in excess of $1.0 billion. We have held the belief that this lawsuit is unlikely to result in a meaningful settlement or win for Xiao-I but given the size of the damages being sought investors should be aware of the suit."
4. News articles:
  1. Fang, Jia-liang 房家梁 (2019-11-28). "小i机器人入选胡润2019中国人工智能企业"百强榜"" [Xiao-i was selected into Hurun's 2019 China Artificial Intelligence Enterprise "Top 100 List"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-10-28. Retrieved 2024-10-28.
    The article notes: "近日，财富榜排榜机构胡润研究院携手知识产权与科创云平台汇桔，联合发布《IP助燃AI新纪元—2019中国人工智能产业知识产权发展白皮书》 (以下简称“白皮书”)，小i机器人与华为、... 共同入选《2019中国人工智能企业知识产权竞争力百强榜》，并跻身百强榜第33名。"
    From Google Translate: "Recently, the Hurun Research Institute, a ranking organization of the Fortune list, and the intellectual property and science and technology innovation cloud platform Huiju jointly released the "IP Fueling the New Era of AI - 2019 China Artificial Intelligence Industry Intellectual Property Development White Paper", hereinafter referred to as the "White Paper", . Xiaoi Robot, Huawei, and... were jointly selected into the "2019 China Artificial Intelligence Enterprise Intellectual Property Competitiveness Top 100 List", and ranked 33rd in the top 100 list."
    The article notes: "7月，在艾瑞咨询发布的《2019年中国人工智能产业研究报告》中，小i机器人成为2019年人工智能产业图谱中最高频亮相的企业之一，是多条赛道上的领先代表；小i机器人研究院团队在由斯坦福大学发起的国际权威机器阅读理解评测SQuAD1.1挑战赛中"
    From Google Translate: "In July, in the "2019 China Artificial Intelligence Industry Research Report" released by iResearch Consulting, Xiaoi Robot became one of the companies that appeared most frequently in the 2019 artificial intelligence industry map, and is a leading representative in multiple tracks; Xiaoi Robot Research Institute team ranked third in the SQuAD1.1 Challenge, an international authoritative machine reading comprehension evaluation initiated by Stanford University"
  2. "索赔100亿小i机器人诉苹果侵权案重启" [Claiming 10 billion yuan, Xiao-i's case against Apple for infringement is reopened]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). 2020-08-05.
    The article notes: "小i机器人于2001年在上海成立，是人工智能技术和产业化平台供应商，最初的商业化产品为智能客服机器人（VCA）。 ... 小i机器人对比分析，认为Siri技术方案落入小i机器人完全拥有自主知识产权的ZL200410053749.9号专利（2004年申请、2009年授权）范围。"
    From Google Translate: "Xiao-i was established in Shanghai in 2001. It is a supplier of artificial intelligence technology and industrialization platforms. Its initial commercial product was the intelligent customer service robot (VCA). ... Xiao-i made a comparative analysis and believed that Siri's technical solution fell into the scope of patent No. ZL200410053749.9 (applied in 2004 and authorized in 2009), which Xiao-i completely owns independent intellectual property rights."
  3. Fang, Jia-lang 房家梁 (2020-02-13). "应对返岗潮，小i机器人以AI技术多向支持防疫工作" [In response to the return to work trend, Xiao-i uses AI technology to support pandemic prevention work in multiple ways] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-10-28. Retrieved 2024-10-28.
    The article notes: "针对社区的返工人群，小i机器人按照各地区防疫部署和具体需求，通过向社区提供免费的防疫外呼机器人服务，通过语音识别、语义理解等技术进行语音交互，根据话术模版，对小区居民发起电话外呼，"
    From Google Translate: "In response to the returnees in the community, Xiaoi Robot provides free pandemic prevention outbound robot services to the community in accordance with the epidemic prevention deployment and specific needs of each region. It uses voice recognition, semantic understanding and other technologies for voice interaction, and initiates outbound calls to community residents based on speech templates."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xiao-i (Chinese: 小i机器人) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:55, 28 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) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Broadly, the available coverage sits under four headings: (1) announcement-based coverage of new products/ joint ventures, which falls under WP:CORPTRIV, (2) discussion of the long-running patent case vs. Apple (which may be or become more appropriate as a distinct article about the IP case rather than a party to it), (3) recent items about their NASDAQ listing and a subsequent action which would again fail WP:CORPDEPTH , and (4) articles about the company itself, which what is needed here. It bothers me that the wording of this AfD nomination presents no specific WP:BEFORE rationale in these respects. While I would prefer to find more discussion of the firm in its own right, I feel that the 2018 Digital Finance article already referenced in the article, plus some of the items quoted by Cunard above are sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:16, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implant bars

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear whether this is a notable sub from dentures and not much found in independent third party sources outwith of commercial marketing JMWt (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI think there are some notable sourcing that suggests it could be expanded as an article.

I think its a type of overdenture, so could be convinced of merging into Dentures#Types

[[24]]
[[25]]
[[26]]

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I'm not sure why I missed those. JMWt (talk) 06:17, 25 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) 12:16, 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 Invalid AFD‎. Correct title is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidzSearch and all discussion should take place there. Whpq (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KidzSearch

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

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agreed this subject has had little or no lasting impact. Searching for references to it via Google, there are few results and mostly just a paragraph in articles listing kid-safe search engines. Rather than delete outright, maybe redirect to Internet filter. I think there could be scope for a generic article on safe search, distinct from SafeSearch which is about the feature built into Google Search. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This somewhat malformed-named nomination is ostensibly a redundant nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidzSearch, but it's this one that is linked from the article and has attracted a legitimate comment. This may require administrative help to fix; any NAC would now split the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that. However, when I added a notice box at the top of the article, the phrase "the deletion discussion" was lighted in red, which meant that the notice box was not linked to the deletion discussion. So how should they be linked? Mlody1312 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to copy and paste my comment to the correct location. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:16, 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 keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennett Bros

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

No SIGCOV. Does not appear to be a noteworthy bussiness on WP. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept that sourcing in the article is deficient. It’s not something that I can do much about as I know Simon and Jonathan well. There would not be a serious mountain biker in New Zealand who would not know of them as they are legends. As such, this article isn’t just about the company, but the three brothers themselves. Given that they have been inducted into the MTB Hall of Fame, that in itself is a strong indicator of notability.Simon would probably meet GNG due to his international racing career, but that was prior to the internet age. As a company, they manage to reprint their MTB guide once every three years and I have read an article that no other NZ publisher apart from Edmonds manages to keep a book in circulation over many years. I’d be happy to go hunting for sources if someone else is prepared to put that into the article. Schwede 66 18:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's nothing on the Tour Aotearoa Brevet, Kopiko Brevet or Sounds to Sounds Brevet - our more recent focus. I'm happy to help but can't really get hands on! Paul Kennett (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, please post on the article's talk page with your suggestions and references. Schwede 66 00:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Paul Kennett (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This does not necessarily need to meet WP:NCORP if it can be shown to meet notability guidelines for biographies (see Wright brothers). I am having issues finding references that talk about them as a group (reliable, secondary, and in detail). Paul, you have already gotten your "hands on" based on the edit history (lol). That aside, you would obviously know more about the available reliable sources than editors here so if you can post them on the talk page or here on the discussion page I would be happy to have a look. If there are sources that show notability as a group (or a page for you or another as a standalone) I would be happy to do the cleanup on the page per WP:HEY. Again, it does not need to meet NCORP standards but the sources would need to be in-depth about you and the others as a group. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these three appear to easily pass notability just on the sources I have found with some quick searching. They seem to be particualrly notable in the world of competitive and recreational cycling in NZ. I've added a pile of references talking about them and their publications. I think each of them is possibly not notable enough for an article individually, but when combining their accomplishments and coverage they reach notability. I would recommend renaming the article to Kennett brothers as they are frequently referred to as such in media coverage, and we should then lean into this becoming more of a biographical article than a business article. The article definitely needs work but they are certainly notable enough to have one and it should not be deleted. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:31, 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 redirect‎ to Red Elvises#Studio albums. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grooving to the Moscow Beat

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

I removed a notability tag because there is a rating from Allmusic. Another editor reverted that because it isn't a review in their view. So, lets settle this. Is this album notable or not? Tag has been on the article since 2012. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after a search for the required "multiple, non-trivial, published works", I could find only one borderline source in the LA Weekly, which I added to the article. Everything else I could find were either blog posts or other user-generated content, which also applies to Allmusic. While the band is notable, this particular album is not unless at least one more source can be provided and some sourced detail about reviewer reception can be added to the article. Certainly an Allmusic rating, which is user-generated, is not sufficient to establish notability and shouldn't have been used as an excuse to remove a valid maintenance template. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blue star "AllMusic Rating" is official from the site's editors and is not user-generated. The red star "User Rating" is the user-generated one. However, there is consensus thar an AllMusic page with an official rating but no official review does not convey notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense. Skyerise (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Elvises, the band. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red_Elvises#Studio_albums: as WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hulme

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much here towards WP:PROF; the single book has two coauthors and not much citation activity visible on GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above - no evidence for meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Created by an SPA, there is also no presence of the subject on Scopus, and the citations in the article are largely primary. Possibly draftify could be an option for the incubation of the article, just in case there may be the sources out there. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 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 keep‎. There is consensus that the subject winning the national contest is enough for WP:ANYBIO. The contest also appears to be notable since the AfD nomination will likely end up with a keep result. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Kumar

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. In addition to that, the citations given are insufficient and do not possess the required quality and reliability. Although she may have won a beauty pageant, it is not a major national fashion or beauty event. Contrasting WP:INHERENT. Also, being married to a businessman who has a wikipedia page of his own does not automatically establish notability by association WP:INHERITED. The notability of her husband's page is also open to debate, but let's not get into that.

This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at NPP School. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Television, Beauty pageants, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award; if other users disagree, a redirect to Gladrags_Manhunt_and_Megamodel_Contest#Winners (where she is listed) should have been considered anyway.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Given the notability of the awards is challenged (rightly so or not, not sure [same nom]) see below and AfD about the awards, keeping my keep but changing my argument: no more ANYBIO but a modest BASIC/GNG pass, in light of the sources presented by Jeraxmoira. (Not opposed to a redirect and merge to Anupam_Mittal#Personal_life, where she is mentioned (with a picture), as a lot of the existing coverage mentions her in regard to her marriage and private life).Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[fwiw, I don't think Anupam Mittal's notability is doubtful][reply]

Keep meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest and represented India in Miss Intercontinental (The winner of Gladrags Mega model represented India at Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003) and ended up as a semi-finalist. She was also a contestant in Bigg Boss and got evicted after 6 weeks. You will get to see a lot of news about her. Added some old references.

Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't rely too heavily on Gladrags Manhunt as a significant award, especially since it itself depends on a single, unreliable source. A search through Google News reveals that the event lacks significance on its own and does not demonstrate notability. Secondly, being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable. We need better sources that are in-depth, significant, and independent. Charlie (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we rely on a contest that is a national contest? Also, Gladrags sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Aanchal represented India among the top five contestants in the Miss Intercontinental. I also agree that being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable, but at the same time, it is very difficult to survive 6 weeks on a reality show like Bigg Boss, she must have done a significant job in the show. She also won the celebrity segment of quiz show Baazi Kiski hosted by B-town actor Ashutosh Rana on Zee TV. Jitujadab90 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, Gladrags is primarily a promotional contest and lacks reliable coverage. I have already provided a Google News search result link that clearly explains my concern. Also, being a participant in an international event is quite different from being a winner. If you are able to add substantial information to help the page meet the Heymann standard, please feel free to do so. Charlie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you think of these sources? [27] [28] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:CITEUNSEEN, the first link from Tribune India is credible, and the article is authored by a staff writer but the coverage appears in Saturday Plus, a supplement rather than the main newspaper. In the second link, Rediff, while also reputable as per CITEHIGHLIGHTER , focuses on being someone's girl friend, which led to its coverage, so I would prefer to skip it. Charlie (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that coverage from a supplement paper and a source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend does not count towards the GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am implying coverage from a supplement paper should be given careful consideration as it may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability. But, the source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend shouldn't be counted. Charlie (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that backs up your statement? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! To partially accept the first source, I will refer to WP:SPONSORED where it clearly states that "merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources". For not accepting the second source, I will take support of WP:INHERITED. Charlie (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have your answer in the statement you mentioned. Unless you can prove that the source published on November 13, 1999, is a sponsored one, it is completely acceptable for GNG. WP:INHERITED states, "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy". Deletion discussions are based on policies and guidelines, not essays.

And fwiw, your interpretation of WP:INHERITED is completely incorrect. Please read the subsequent paragraphs below the example arguments. WP:INHERITED is not applicable here, as no one is arguing that she is notable for being Yuvraj Singh’s rumored girlfriend. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While essays are not official policies or guidelines, many offer valuable insights and are worth considering. Policies and guidelines may not cover every possible situation, so numerous essays provide interpretations or commentary on community norms for particular topics and scenarios. We may hold differing views, and each perspective has merit. so let’s respectfully agree to disagree. Charlie (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous reliable sources available, starting from her winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest up to her recent marriage and childbirth, which can be used to write a well sourced article. WP:INHERITED discusses an instance of a subject assumed to be notable only because it is related to an existing notable subject, which does not apply here. We have coverage that goes back to 1999, from different events in her life. Even if we consider all the coverage from Bigg Boss as one, we still have substantial coverage starting from her pageant victory up to her entry into Bigg Boss, which easily meets GNG. The 2012 deletion discussion was argued on the basis of subject being notable for one event, which is also not applicable, as we have coverage beyond that. Apart from this, Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest has also survived two AfDs, which means the pageant victory should be considered as significant award or honor, thereby passing WP:ANYBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty finding relevant sources on Google search, or perhaps I might be overlooking some like I missed the 1999 Tribune Supplement. Would it be possible for you to provide a source analysis table to aid in? This would be incredibly valuable for me as well as for the assessor regarding my recently concluded NPP training, as my rights application is still pending. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a source analysis here. I believe the main issue lies with your nomination, as you cited WP:INHERITED which is commonly used in AfD arguments, not nominations. A recent example of inherited notability could be Alakh Pandey. In this case, Aanchal Kumar is not solely notable for marrying Anupam Mittal, participating in Bigg Boss or winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest rather her notability comes from all three factors, at this point. Redirecting Aanchal Kumar to either Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest or Anupam Mittal would result in a significant loss of content, so that's out of the discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Though I was hoping for a source analysis table, but thank you nonetheless! Charlie (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeraxmoira,@Jitujadab90 and thank you, please note that the nominator has also nominated Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest for deletion (one day after this). Mushy Yank (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She did severals of notable work and have good sources. Camilear (talk) 16:06, 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 keep‎. I hope the participants will be able to help with improvements to the article with the sources found. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veitikka

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

No refs on the page for many years. It reads like WP:OR and/or an essay, can't find sources which would meet the notability criteria. But then I don't speak Finnish, it is possible there is extensive coverage in that or other laguages. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Finland. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Review by Maailman Kuvalehti: [29], Biography by Panu Rajala [fi] has several pages on Veitikka: [30], Monograph by Tero Liukkonen [fi], Veikko Huovinen : kertoja, veitikka, toisinajattelija (1997), the chapter on Veitikka is readable online: [31]. --Mika1h (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage above is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:58, 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 13:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Khamgaon municipal council election

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

Unable to find any sources to show that this election happened, let alone enough sources to meet WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Maharashtra. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even my search yields nothing on this 2016 council election. The creator might be able to explain the sourcing, but they haven't been active for a long time.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also tried searching extensively by going through many links in the Maharashtra election archives, but I still couldn’t find any record, so deletion seems to be the only option. GrabUp - Talk 14:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as G5, more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dny123. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoranjan Saha Memorial B.ed College

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

This college does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines, as it falls short in several key areas. The institution lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, which are essential for establishing notability. Without substantial recognition or documentation in widely accepted publications i.e., WP:RSP, the college does not achieve the visibility or impact needed to fulfill notability standards.

This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at NPP School. Charlie (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. Charlie (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University: As it fails to meet notability guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, redirecting it would be a good option per WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:40, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Avengers

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly recreated over the redirect, but as per the last AFD, this team isn't notable enough for a separate article, even though the page has been updated some more. I propose restore the redirect and WP:SALT it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Not sure a redirect is needed. AA (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:10, 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 14:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Zeidan

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

Fails WP:BIO, reads like promotional material, most sources are either broken or unreliable 'socialite' content. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 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 redirect‎ to Hanu-Man. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Hanuman (film)

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

The current sourcing is just about first look, and no SIGCOV sources were found. The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Also, the shooting of the film has not started, as this is a sequel to Hanu-Man. I will request a redirect to that article until it passes GNG or NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 07:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. GrabUp - Talk 07:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft lack of proper citation as its too early. UzbukUdash (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since only the poster (as a First Look) was released a day ago, there may not be enough verified information or notable media coverage to establish this upcoming film's significance at this time. WP:TOOSOON.This vote is part of my training and assessment activities at NPP School. Charlie (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a very anticipated film, as existing coverage shows; or redirect to Hanu-Man#Future until consensus is to revert and expand, if other users think it's better. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp, can I ask why you didn't discuss Redirect on the article TP or with the main contributor if this is the outcome you suggest? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: It’s my opinion, and I’m uncertain whether it should be redirected or deleted. I didn’t want to do the redirect myself due to this uncertainty, so I took it to AfD. There’s no way this article can be kept now, and I thought a bold redirect could be challenged, which Charlie proved. I can see that they think this article should be deleted. GrabUp - Talk 10:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, There’s no better place than AfD to determine its notability. A talk page discussion would likely have fewer editors involved, possibly just me and the author. GrabUp - Talk 11:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, precisely, if the creator agrees on a Redirect, it's an easily-reached consensus. But never mind, that's not a problem and you did well to nominate it if you think it's fairer. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hanu-Man: Per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Charliehdb (talk) 11:08, 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. Was already deleted CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Nirmal (actor)

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

Recreation of salted title: Nitish Nirmal, which was salted back in August. No immediate evidence of notability that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and Salt: The subject does not meet any notability criteria, the current sourcing is unreliable, no significant coverage sources were found during the search, and no significant roles in notable films, it fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Salt per both of the above, as it's just been speedy deleted G5. Completely non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR, and I could find only passing mentions of him for his minor roles. Wikishovel (talk) 16:06, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Nile Region from 1898 under Anglo-Egyptians Military Rule with Civil Colonial Natives Administrations

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

Blatant essay. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Egypt, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think there is a valid topic here - “The administration of the Upper Nile Region under colonial rule” - and there are sources. I don’t think this is an essay. It just, well, a draft. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra and everyone else: For what it's worth, I'm actually okay with outcomes other than deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: needs alot of copy editing especially for bold and capital letters which appears randomly through the text. Not to mention the lack of references and links to other articles. The article author might want to start by going though Wikipedia:Manual of Style, then submit the draft for approval. Do that for couple of articles before jumping to moving articles to the main space. But beyond that, great start and a very interesting topic. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:41, 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. There was some support for having a list with a dramatically reduced scope, but no consensus to draftify or clean-up. This AfD did not qualify for a "speedy keep", and that !vote was discarded. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamophobic incidents

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

Since I nominated List of antisemitic incidents in the United States I should nominate this too, since it has the exact same problems.

Extremely, extremely broad and vague scope, with barely any quality control. Making this list anywhere close to comprehensive coverage of its baffling scope would be impossible, and would mostly contain low level news stories (as it does). If this was going to be a selection of notable pages (and changing it to that would require deleting 99% of the list) maybe, but the problem is in the title still: "Incident". Incident is so broad as to be useless, it can be anywhere from a terrorist attack to someone calling someone a mean word on the bus, this is a completely un manageable scope. Anti-Muslim terror acts or hate crimes targeted at mosques would likely meet NLIST, and if there is consensus to rescope to that we can, but that would also require nuking most of the page. Also, weasel words: "could be considered Islamophobic"? What? Also has WP:BLPCRIME concerns in that it accuses people of crimes without convictions. It also has WP:NOTNEWS issues, which is not inherently a problem for a list, but is a problem when it's based on an inherently POV and negative concept and one with a scope as vague and with as many possible entries as "incident" PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Islam, and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The list should be rescoped to only contain notable events with broad coverage. It may also be viable to rename it to something like "List of Islamophobic terror attacks" or "List of Islamophobic hate crimes", depending on the new scope. I don't think outright deleting the page would be productive. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I don't know why you are doing this. But this list is super-duper notable. Lots of references are added to the article. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for lists is not predicated off of how many citations are referencing the individual items. If the concept of the list is not manageable or is not notable then it can be deleted. There is no way to have this article in a manner that does not violate WP:What Wikipedia is not PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rescope to only focus on notable incidents agree with nom that this is not a managable list in its current form due to the volume of coverage of incidents. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of these incidents are non-notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify - WP:SALAT indicates list articles should not be overly broad. This article probably could exist if the subsections were there own articles with relevant and useful selection criteria. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rescope for the same reasons that led to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of antisemitic incidents in the United States. The list can be sourced and focused on a non-indiscriminate collection, so it's a matter of editing, not deletion. --cyclopia^speak! 10:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose rescoping it to? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parakanyaa: To list only notable incidents.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is acceptable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article has become a collection of largely non-notable incidents. Lorstaking (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Few of the arguments presented are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That would be helpful in future contributions to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bluethricecreamman/SALAT: too broad, plus the incidents are mostly unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That the list is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of non-notable incidents is true, but it is a concern that can be solved by editing and as such is not really relevant in a deletion discussion. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Lichters

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

A likely autobiography of a non-notable academic. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV (news searches turn up zero results, for example) to pass WP:GNG. Nor is there evidence of a WP:NACADEMIC pass; his h-index of 9 is quite low for a full professor in business/economics, indicating that he is not particularly influential within his profession and more of a WP:MILL academic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Business, Economics, and Germany. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF at present, might be too early career, though surprised subject holds a chair. I note there's also an article at de. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article on German WP was also created by “MLichters”. Also worth noting that the subject doesn't hold a named chair but rather is a department chair. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything @Dclemens1971 said. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. The article reads like a CV Earlsofsandwich (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While his publications and citations are on the rise, they are still low (both h-factor and total) so this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. It will probably be 5 years before they are strong enough, when he can resubmit a new version. Note: almost no sources for most of the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Partin

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN No establishment of notability. Only 1 secondary source, and it's about his election. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Virginia. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL's presumed notability cause he hasn't been elected to state-level office (only local level), which makes it fall back upon WP:GNG and the "Major local political figures who have received WP:SIGCOV" bullet point. And there's no evidence of this either on the article or in my research - only things I could find are WP:PRIMARY bios/profiles on government pages (per WP:BIO primary sources don't establish notability), passing mentions in articles mainly about legislation and [32] which is just about him being a candidate for Mayor and based off an email he sent them. Molecular Pilot 08:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to my draft space for further additions, we can delete the main article Paytonisboss (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to move the article into draft while this discussion is underway. Bearcat (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not know my bad Paytonisboss (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're truly convinced that it might be salvageable with more work, then we do have the option of moving it to draft (or your user sandbox) as the final conclusion of this discussion. So if you want that, we can certainly do it, but we have to let the process run its course first. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes i would like to continue my work on this page as a draft and look for nobility but if i cant find any am i able to delete the draft myself? Paytonisboss (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage enabling us to write a substantial article about their political impact. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, the only GNG-worthy source isn't enough all by itself, and per MolecularPilot there really just isn't much else out there that would count for more. Bearcat (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with you guys the nobility is not there, the sources dont have much nobility all by themself and according to primary sources theres no secondary sources to back up the primary sources and the article seems a little opinionated now that i do a 2nd look of it most of the sources are based off the opinion of the person the article is about and theres very little nobility in the guy the article is about therefore i think it needs deleted. I also beleave that the article isnt able to be supported for nobility whatsoever.Paytonisboss (talk) 12:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltersville, Indiana

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

Another case where the cited source argues against notability, for the passage in question reads in full, "This is a little place laid out by Mrs. Anna Barbara Malter, December 17, 1867. It has no postoffice, and is little more than the crossing of two public highways." And indeed there is a cement plant a little ways off in one direction, and a plumbing house's showroom in another, and the latter claims to be in Jasper. THis seems to be a place that just never really amounted to anything. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NPLACE states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but per WP:NPLACE and WP:GNIS the GNIS reference doesn't count as legal recognition and as it's unincorporated I don't think there's any other recognition (open to being corrected here by someone more familiar with the US). Thus it falls back onto WP:GNG and I can't find anything to meet that - the book in reflist only has a passing reference of it, being more about Jasper and other places + can't find anything else. Molecular Pilot 08:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly nonexistent place, and GNIS counts for neither notability nor legal recognition. It thus fails the incredibly low bar of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 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 00:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JoonYong Park

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Very little coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mostly primary sources... press releases, a few interviews which per WP:INTERVIEWS would be primary sources, and the one small independent secondary source (the AdAge piece, ref #1 and #7) is the same piece just republished. WP:BEFORE search just shows more primary sources, social media, LinkedIn posts, etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, South Korea, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There was no support for treating this as an article about a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial, which means WP:PERP likely does not apply here. WP:VICTIMIZE stipulates keeping pages that are completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic, and there was no support for deleting the page due to violating the spirit of BLP. Consensus among P&G-based views was that the article meets those requirements, and even the Delete side acknowledged the lasting coverage. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

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

Lack of any real notability, apart from having won the lottery and being a moron. Lack of citations makes this even worse, as there's hardly anything to say about this guy. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a bit tricky because it does seem like there's a lot of "lasting" coverage, but most of it is just rehashing the same tabloid article going back many years and isn't quality. It seems like the only coverage in reliable sources is very clustered around his troubles with the law - I'd argue that if it's this, rather than the act of winning the lottery, that makes him notable, he fails WP:PERP. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only because it is shot thru with deprecatory bits... all true, all ref'd, but in the spirit of WP:BLP we don't want to do this, and you kind of can't delete all of it or you don't have an accurate article. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably say keep it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People). Even the lottery wins is uncited Tesleemah (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a spectacular idiot satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Once notable, always notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is very important, or to phrase it another way, no less important than many many others. Who are we to culturally filter what is kept? The number of actors/writers articles I pass by here who clearly curate their own pages, running them as C.Vs, and they all stay because they find some NYT books section reference to stave off deletion. This guy? He gets binned? Michael, his response to wealth, and the infamy it generated at the time in newspapers, is significant in U.K. early 2000s culture. It remaining is important in evidencing the wider implications for how money, culture, and class influence society. Wikipedia is damaged by loss of articles like these, and all the more so because people with poor socio-economic positions are simply pushed out of existence (literally, here), while those with means remain (and thus dominate). SFC9394 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times dedicated 1,133 words on Carroll stating he is an object of "national fascination". There's been a documentary about the subject on mainstream UK television that itself has received critical attention from reliable sources. There's quite a lot of further coverage available. I see no reason why the subject fails to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of tabloidy coverage, but there is also stuff that is not tabloid at all. The fascination with him went beyond the surface level, and he does clearly meet WP:BASIC PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus here. Please do not focus on the worthiness of the subject and what meaning having this article on Wikipedia portends to some classes of people. We are primarily interested in whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated in reliable, secondary sources. Your personal opinions on the subject should not factor into your assessment of it. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he became one of the most prominent type-specimens of what can go wrong when someone wins the lottery and is unable to derive any lasting benefit from the event (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/19/curse-of-the-lottery-what-happened-next-to-four-winners). It wasn't just a brief flash of tabloid scandal, or even just sustained tabloid Schadenfreude; the coverage is across a broad spectrum of press, and connected to the social phenomenon of the lottery and what it does to lives. I appreciate the OP's concern about our reflecting tabloid muck-slinging; nevertheless, I think we need to keep the article, because we can at least summarise the entire coverage in a balanced way, which serves our readers (and Carroll) better than they'll get from a crude Google search. Elemimele (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (in reduced form) to Lottery#Outcomes_for_big_winners. There's very little there and some anecdotes about winners would be helpful. Much of the detail in this AfD'd article has little to do with his lottery win and is not, in itself, signficant. Lamona (talk) 21:56, 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!} 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pittsburgh shooting

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

I have been unable to find sustained and persistent coverage of this shooting and I believe that it does not meet the crime notability guideline. The shooting occurred on April 17, 2022, and all but three sources that I have been able to find were published from April 17–19, 2022. First, an academic article published November 11, 2022, has a paragraph about the shooting claiming that it "gained wide public attention, commentary, and condemnation", but it only cites to an April 17, 2022 article in People. Then, on November 17, 2022, WTAE-TV aired a story on a lawsuit that was filed regarding the shooting. Finally, in April 2023, WTAE ran a routine one-year follow-up piece. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the follow up piece routine (and I think that word is overused) but it is excessively local and by itself not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this piece from earlier this year, which goes into its impact on airbnb, the law it inspired and the ongoing legal battle. I think this is pretty decent with respect to showing notability.

Less helpful post 2022-sources: [33] [34] [35] [36]

Coverage is, to my taste, excessively local, but Pittsburgh is the second largest city in a large state so... eh. More importantly is that the later coverage is analytical with respect to the shooting's relationship with Airbnb. Not sure if it's enough, so not yet going to vote either way. This did result in a law change (as the first piece shows). Maybe merge somewhere, but can't think of a target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sort of adds something to it, but as you said, this coverage is all fairly local. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I did not vote keep. It did get some coverage nationally and internationally when it happened (not that that matters as much in the age of the internet as it did when NEVENT was written, but it's something). Depth is also an issue as when there's only one really in depth piece I'm not sure if it's possible to write a decent article, which is the most important thing at the end of it. NEVENT is a mix of a bunch of factors, but I guess my vote taking them into account would be delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:41, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Cosmetics

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO and WP:ROUTINE. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks rather promotional and lacking independent coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looky (Rainbow Friends)

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

Fails GNG. PROD was removed. C F A 💬 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is so obviously not notable, its a waste of time to further humor this user let's just get rid of this garbage. The mini-game in Roblox that these characters are supposedly from doesn't even have it's own article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable character in a non-notable game. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rainbow Friends itself isn’t notable. 2 WP:PRIMARY and 1 possible RS, on its little paragraph in List of Roblox games. Why would its characters be? ^{(maybe I’m tripping over WP:NOTINHERITED’s common arguments to avoid, but oh well.)} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources present that indicate any notability for this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Origin was not even notable in the first place and the fact this article exists is just ridiculous. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Little character from a non-notable game. Babysharkboss2!! ^(Hardwired!) 15:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more children's non-notable media items. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems rather inspired by https://wikirainbowfriends.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Lookies. I don't see Looky or Lookies mentioned at List of Roblox games#Rainbow Friends where the article might have been redirected to, and with the current sourcing it does not meet WP:NFICT. Sam Sailor 11:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. Zero notability at all and even its main subject doesn't seem notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article discusses a non-notable character from a non-notable game. Honestly, this looks like the type of thing that one would find in a fan wiki. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and likely WP:SNOW close) we rarely have articles on characters from a video game, let alone from ones without an article as sources rarely focus on a specific character. Abigail (Stardew Valley) comes into mind. Even if the character meats the notability standards, then its usually best to say that information in a relevant article than its own. JuniperChill (talk) 23:37, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Education Support

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

There is no assertion of notability and while I do not read Russian, Google Translate accesses it with some ease and I'm unable to find N:ORG level coverage. I do not think a redirect to or merge with Gymnazium Union of Russia is viable as I'm not sure that would survive AfD either although the name makes a BEFORE more challenging. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and Russia. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without seeing significant third party reliable sources that show that the inclusion criteria have been met, I can't see how we can tell how important/significant this is. It has been reported but it seems to be only a small ripple in the media, and I'm not even sure how reliable those sources are. JMWt (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is valuable, even if only to list the existence of this foundation. The article helped in my research of education foundations in Russia. Notability may be satisfied in that this foundation is back by the Russian government. 2600:1003:A410:A2BC:D0B6:E1D1:2DD1:8177 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no longer any reliable sources in Russia, especially the government, and without independent verification thus can’t be trusted. Bearian (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macintyre Art Advisory

AfDs for this article:

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

Created by a single edit editor. Last AfD was withdrawn for technical reasons for being nominated by a sock. This fails WP:ORG and GNG and has been marked for notability concerns for 9 years. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage of this organization. This is about all I can pull up [37], I don't think that's enough. The one source in the article now isn't enough either. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having one source is as good as original research, which is not what we do. I don’t see how organizing a single exhibit is notable. Bearian (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Ali Syed

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

Fails WP:GNG and cannot be considered for WP: CREATIVE for Journalists. It seems all the articles published for the subject were put together as sources on his Wikipedia page. The sources focused on different walks of life rather than the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mentioned in the article are not related to the subject of the article. The sources mentioned are mostly the news articles written by the subject himself. These sources do not establish notability. TNM101 (chat) 10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This BLP is based on self-published sources and clearly fails GNG. Fwiw, the creator Wikiwookie543 (talk · contribs) has created several BLPs that strongly suggest they are engaging in UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. Fails WP:GNG. 103.82.120.88 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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