Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 10	September 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potech

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

As far as I can see, does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, no sources talking about the company independently and seems to be pure advertising. Moved to mainspace too early without review. Also suffers from WP:OVERCITE and WP:SOLUTION - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Cyprus. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above I can see it's an paid contribution and trying to promote the company. Xegma(talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith thanks for opening this conversation. Potech is a very notable cybersecurity company but considering the discretion needed around its services, it is rarely mentioned publicly through lengthy articles. That's why I've been facing difficulties finding references sources as such. I also tried to keep the text as short as possible to avoid having it look like an advertisement.

When I tried to submit it for review, I followed my mentor instructions to change the page title (from my username to Potech) and I moved it to mainspace too early without knowing... Is there any way you could support? TechPaths (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about moving it to mainspace "too early". Now that it's the subject of a deletion discussion, we're more interested in the sources that exist about the topic than the present state of the article. Unfortunately, if it's rarely mentioned publicly, that's a strong indication that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some changes that might help, using the existing references. If you have any suggestion, I'd be grateful. TechPaths (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edits have in fact made it worse, you've re-added external links to the article body which is not allowed. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-placed as citations. Thank you. TechPaths (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has a different meaning on Wikipedia. Notability is not 'important' or 'influential' or 'successful'. It's 'the extent to which something has been the topic of media coverage' the extent to which it has been noted.

As you note, "it is rarely mentioned publicly through lengthy articles", if that is the case, unfortunately it does not pass the notability requirement and cannot have a Wikipedia article - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. TechPaths (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think if this is Soft Deleted, it wil just be restored. To the article creator, I suggest you ask for Draftication as I see no support for Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Gnews, Gsearch is strictly social media or primary sources. Source 14 is red per Cite Highlighter, rest seem to be trivial mentions/name drops. I don't coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Blair (disambiguation)

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

Middle names don't count, so there's only one real Preston Blair. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Disambiguations, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not uncommon for people to go by their middle name, and the elder Francis Preston Blair is such a case; it's only lightly touched upon in the article, but he went by Preston rather than by Francis. So, there are multiple people going by "Preston Blair". —Lowellian (reply) 03:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is a source for Sr. going by that name.[1] Now, did Jr. follow in his father's footsteps? If not, then WP:TWODABS may apply, with Sr. being the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with WP:TWOOTHER in mind. The dab page doesn't truly need to exist, but hatnote-solving (or not mentioning) this may be even less elegant. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear Francis Preston Blair was referred to as Preston. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HG2 Filmworks (director)

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

The bunch of sources just made it look like they are significant if they weren’t checked on. Also what made it up to 45 source was the musical videos published on mere blogs mentioning him as the director and nothing more like he has contributed on a notable project was being discussed on the blogs. Which already fails WP:GNG. Was in surprise how the article was created by a different person from draft & move by another different person who is already blocked of a sock. But that’s by the way as the main subject is to be focused on. Gabriel (……?) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Nigeria, and United States of America. Gabriel (……?) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional article only focuses on listing the entrepreneur's achievements this is not a resume it is an encyclopedia article. Alon9393 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear from some experienced editors about this deletion nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was considering a keep here but I don’t think that the music videos produced as outlined here and the nomination could meet WP:CREATIVE#3. The sources present does not satisfy the general notability criterias as the BLP is sourced to blogs and music download websites which no significant coverage whatsoever. Reliables sources here are mostly interviews and run-on-the-mill articles. Best, Reading Beans 10:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Gosh

AfDs for this article:

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

The article on Omar Gosh should be considered for deletion as it appears to fall short of Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. While Omar Gosh is recognized as a YouTube personality, the article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth analysis beyond passing mentions. The content primarily relies on self-published or primary sources, which do not adequately establish the subject's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Given the insufficient evidence of widespread recognition or influence, the article does not meet the criteria for a standalone entry and should be considered for deletion. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, United States of America, and Florida. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the last AfD had three sources listed as significant, but they seem to be local in nature and more like human interest stories than anything extensive, I don't consider them terribly helpful. I can't find anything since these were published, so I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of the "influencer"-type sources (youtube, tiktok, etc etc) but nothing independent and nothing substantial. There are some interviews, but no real bios. Lamona (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mjbmr wants to take back his nomination; see here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mjbmr, if you wish to withdraw your nomination, please state that underneath your nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmut Tolon

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Turkey. Kadı Message 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the appropriate standard is WP:NPROF in this case, and it looks like he might be able to meet it. But the sourcing here right now is... not good. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, link provided are not neutral and independent. Turkish sources are not adequate to make the article pass GNG. I examined all of the links as a Turkish user. Best wishes. Kadı Message 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. Article also has no inline citations, and I don't even think the sources used are reliable or show subject's notability. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Redirect preferred over deletion as WP:ATD. asilvering (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many of these embassy articles created at a time with less stringent enforcement of notability requirements, this fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which contains all the encyclopaedic information about the embassy. The list of ambassadors should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate target but I haven't immediately found one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. Fails requirements for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SBSS 0953+549

AfDs for this article:

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

Trying again to delete this article. The reasons for keep in the past nominations are ridiculous and superficial. The only relevant paper (Levshakov et al. 1986) only mention spectral data and nothing of note. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your decision to delete it. SBSS 0953+549 is my weakest article so far and upon its creation, realized the information doesn't make any sense or is vague. After the first discussion ended in no consensus, I didn't bother to look at the article since it is a disappointment to me. Galaxybeing (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what Galaxybeing said... ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This quasar has been the subject of at least two studies [2][3], and there is also some commentary here [4]. These are enough to fullfil the criteria. The fact that there is little interest about the object now doesn't mean it isn't notable, as once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (from WP:NTEMP).--C messier (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've said before, definitely not notable. We don't explicitly define "significant coverage", but a couple of barely cited papers from 30+ years ago does not feel "significant" in any way. Wikipedia is not made better by keeping this article around, as there is nothing to put in it. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how something feels is how significant coverage is judged? --C messier (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C messier. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was just at AFD in July and closed as No Consensus and it looks like the same outcome might happen here. I'm not sure that much has changed in a few weeks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think as a general principle a 2nd AfD nomination should wait a year or more, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASX J22550681+0058396

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I think we need a more rigorous discussion of this object. The criteria is significant coverage, not mere mention. And no such study exists. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some commentary beyond the trivial mention in a table in three small scale studies: [5][6], and [7], and there is of course the hubble's picture of the week. Weak keep. --C messier (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as right now it's No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed all the text that was trying to summarize content from catalog papers. There's not really anything left. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Loitering munition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket drone

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

Poorly sourced with claims of significance being completely uncited. Other sources also note the "Rocket Drone" is a misconception as it in fact uses a jet engine and is also not a unique design as other kamikaze drones with jet engines already exist. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, Aviation, and Ukraine. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : It seems perhaps merging some of this content with either Precision-guided_munition or Loitering_munition or Cruise_missile would be right step. Though I'm not sure anyone publicly knows much for sure about Ukraine's rocket drone munition to know how it should be classified. Ukraine even claims it's brand-new technology, but I don't know enough about it to know if that's true. Perhaps "rocket drone" should be a re-direct to an appropriate page. The sourcing should not be an issue...there's plenty of Ukrainian government statements that they have made a "rocket drone" (or "missile drone"), you could improve the article yourself by adding those references. A lack of references isn't a reason for deletion, it's a reason to put "citation needed". The bigger reason to turn this into a re-direct is, as you point out, that it seems similar "jet drones" already exist, and "rocket drone" is just a Ukrainian-translated (or mis-translated?) term for the same thing. Unless Ukraine really has made something new, which we'll have to wait to find out. The wiki unfortunately doesn't really seem to contain any generic discussion of "jet drone" munitions. I looked at the link you supplied, and looking at the wiki, there's a page for the non-munition QinetiQ_Banshee, but the munition variant seems like a recent hack by the UK. But there's no generic page or content for such "jet drone" munitions. The situation is even worse for the HESA_Karrar where it's known to be a jet drone, but disputed whether it can even carry munitions, and no content in the wiki about it BEING a munition. There is the Shahed_drones#Shahed_238 that is described as a loitering jet munition...but nothing on the Loitering_munition page about anything jet-powered. So maybe merge some jet content into the Loitering_munition page and make "rocket drone" and "missile drone" redirect to Loitering_munition

Jason C.K. (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's focused on a specific Ukrainian drone, so perhaps we should merge it to Palianytsia (missile)? Whether or not the broader concept should have an article could be a future discussion for WT:MILHIST. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link supplied by UtoD shows that other "jet drones" already exist, and at least 2 are already referenced in Wikipedia (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238). But there's no generic coverage (yet?) of "jet drones" in the Loitering_munition page Jason C.K. (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Palianytsia, there is not really anything to merge is there. Once there's some actual knowledge about what makes rocket drone any different another weapon - if it's drone with a rocket motor or a cruise missile with a remote control - then we can see where the term should really go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link supplied by UtoD shows that other "jet drones" already exist, and at least 2 are already referenced in Wikipedia (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238). But there's no generic coverage (yet?) of "jet drones" in the Loitering_munition page. Of course, we don't know yet FOR SURE that Palianytsia is just another jet drone...but UtoD's linked article makes it seem all but certain Jason C.K. (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case redirect to UAV or cruise missile. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the most accurate re-direct would be to Loitering_munition. Jason C.K. (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be removed. Ukrainian new missile has nothing to do with rocket. Jaburza (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or rename to "jet drone", since non-Ukrainian ones already exist (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238), this one seems to be similar, and that's perhaps the best English translation of what the Ukrainians are saying Jason C.K. (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the phrase "jet drone" that us distinguishable from "jet-powered drone"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either phrase seems fine to me. Though what I think should happen is the most commonly-used new terms (missile drone and rocket drone) as well as the most accurate term (jet drone) should re-direct to Loitering_munition, and that page should include some text about how some drones are jet-powered Jason C.K. (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with loitering munition per Jason C.K., GraemeLeggett, and the duck test. Secondary sources do not adequately explain how this class of weapons is distinguishable from existing jet-powered loitering munitions, and circumstances suggest that Ukrainian claims about its unique capabilities may be propaganda. (As an aside, I wonder if using the word "rocket" to describe a jet-powered munition may be an example of inexact translation, i.e., perhaps the Ukrainian term meaning "rocket" can also mean "powered by something other than a propeller" in context.)

Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is absolutely no consensus here, not even agreement on a possible Merge target article. Maybe another week of discussion and consideration will help come to some agreement here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we settle on a primary Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is it should Merge to Loitering_munition. And there could be a re-direct to there Jason C.K. (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Redirect for Loitering Munition as the best option for the moment. -UtoD 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pavlo

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

Associate professor who has made a good start, but with an h-factor of 40 in a high-citation field and no major awards is not yet notable. A claim of notability was made on the basis that he received a Sloan, but that is not of sufficient status, neither is a career grant. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon unless a coherent citation profile can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
What's incoherent about the one listed in the Authority Control panel? See [8]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's better. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the h-index of 40. Database is a relatively low-citation subfield of computer science. Several recent ACM Fellows who also work on databases such as Daniel Abadi (2020), Peter Boncz (2022), and Xin Luna Dong (2023) all have an h-index in the 50s. 40 might be too low for AI/ML researchers but high enough for database.

I'm not very familiar with the standards on awards. My main rationale was that (1) universities consistently put Sloan Research Fellowships in their press releases and (2) within Computer Science, Sloan is more selective (around 20 per year) than other recognitions such as ACM Fellowships (more than 50 per year) or NSF CAREER (not sure how many, but definitely a lot more than 20 per year). PetraMagna (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those mean totally different things. NSF CAREER is only given to assistant professors and at many research universities is expected for getting tenure. It is also an important way to fund early-career researchers. I have heard of cases where someone would get tenure anyway but held off in order to have another year of eligibility for a CAREER. The Sloan is also funding for early-career researchers but less of a make-or-break thing. ACM Fellowship, on the other hand, is typically given to established full professors with a significant record of research. The other society fellowship often given to computer scientists is IEEE Fellow (explicitly listed in WP:PROF as an example of something that passes #C3); it is my impression that ACM Fellow is more selective than IEEE Fellow. It is for that reason that ACM Fellow passes WP:PROF#C3 and the CAREER and Sloan do not count towards notability (also, both are grants, not a prize for an outstanding result or an honorary level of membership in a scholarly society, so they are not really relevant for #C2 or #C3). Which is to say: Pavlo does not pass #C3. Also, although databases may not be as hot as machine learning right now, it is still a well-cited subfield, much more so than some other areas. I don't think "relatively low-citation subfield of computer science" is accurate. He still may have enough citations for #C1, but that seems to be the only possibility for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation on awards/grants! I suppose the only way to establish notability now is that Pavlo has about as many citations as ACM Fellows on the lower end, esp. Peter Boncz who also has 10k citations when he received the fellowship in 2022 by an archived page. Jayant Haritsa has even less, but he seems more like an outlier. PetraMagna (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The highly-cited publications (in a somewhat higher citation field) are generally also highly coauthored. He is first author on the highest cited (in a field where this matters), but middle author on a paper with 10 coauthors does not convince me of so much. It looks just a bit WP:TOOSOON for NPROF, and I don't see the coverage of OtterTune as enough for GNG notability. Watching discussion in case better evidence of notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia bootdisk

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

Almost entirely original research, clearly fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE did not come up with much in the way of substance. It seems this article flew under the radar for 19 years since nobody cared that much about an obscure Dreamcast piracy tool, but it certainly doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. There are no reliable sources that discuss the subject, therefore it clearly fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Datel. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Freeloader

AfDs for this article:

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

As much as I dislike region locks on systems, this short-lived software did not seem to get any SIGCOV in reliable sources. I have checked the previous AfD, but the sources mentioned are very short and weak, and could not be used to write a comprehensive treatment of the subject. A check in gaming magazines came up with little as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't WP:NOTABLE. At best it had a brief burst of news coverage, which isn't in the scope of an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTNEWS. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Shooterwalker. No WP:SIGCOV, nothing on Google Scholar beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and nothing at all on JSTOR (unsurprisingly). No evidence of notability. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Datel per WP:ATD (It survived one AFD after all) IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Datel - as a reasonable ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 performance analysis tools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Software, Inc.

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

Sources are all about products made by the company, not the company itself. I could find no secondary or tertiary sources discussing the company; it fails to meet GNG or WP:NBUSINESS. The company's products seem like they may be notable, but the company itself fails notability per WP:INHERITORG. This page also appears to have been made by an undisclosed COI, as the editor who made this page has exclusively edited this article and articles about this company's software. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find much more about this company besides old directory listings and advertisements - nothing that would establish notability independent of any of its products. Fails GNG. MaterialsPsych (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GlowCode as an ATD. Redirects are cheap and the article subject is mentioned in the target article. Pavlor (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From a glance at GlowCode, I'm not confident that would survive an AfD either - can we get more discussion on whether it's a suitable redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned on MSDN Magazine as another profiler. Another ATD could be List of performance analysis tools. IgelRM (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Nominator) I did a source search for GlowCode and while there are plenty of trivial mentions in sources, I'm not seeing any sort of WP:SIGCOV, agree that it may need an AFD as well. Support List of performance analysis tools as the redirect target, it's not perfect but I can't find a better target article; that's the only article that links to Electric Software or GlowCode other than each other. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inedible fruits

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

This page is far too broad a topic to be covered as a list. Estimates of the total number of plant species currently described is around 374,000. The total flowering plants is about 295,383. (DOI:10.11646/phytotaxa.261.3.1) If even a quarter of these are inedible that is 73,000 entries. In addition to having a great deal of uncertainty of what would or would not count as a fruit for purposes of the list. Even more critically the line between what is or is not edible is fuzzy. Should fruits that are edible only with large amounts of processing go on the list or not? If this were a category it would be nominated as an example of over categorization. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Organisms, and Lists. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Far too broad and loosely defined a topic to make for a particularly useful list. I can see some use in a list of inedible fruits of a particular group (eg. cucurbits), but this is just too non-specific. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is like "List of birds that are not chickens" - exactly the wrong way round to go at this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad and difficult to source as they can be inedible for many reasons. Without the reason for inedibility the list has little value. I can see a value in a more specific list of poisonous fruits (there is a List_of_poisonous_plants) or for ones on what we do eat, i.e. a list of edible fruits. There are lists for seeds, flowers, oils, nuts, and cacti), as well as the non-botanical list of culinary fruits and a remarkably specific List of edible plants and mushrooms of southeast Alaska. — Jts1882 | talk 07:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most "fruits" (as defined botanically) are considered "inedible" to/by humans, from the very tiniest to the very largest, and since there are millions of plant species that propagate via seeds inside "fruits", the absurdity of this article becomes obvious very quickly. That's even above and beyond the fact that this list is completely uncited, and there are already grave errors in it -- see Talk:List of inedible fruits. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The title is far too broad, but the actual scope of the article is narrower - inedible berries (vernacular sense), or narrower yet ("false friend" berries). If there was consensus that an article of narrower scope is feasible this could be renamed. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to completeness issues, I note that potato isn't on the list, even though the poisonous fruits look like green tomatoes. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that "the actual scope of the article is narrower - inedible berries (vernacular sense), or narrower yet ("false friend" berries)" The scope per the title is "fruits" and the scope in the lead (which differs from the title) is "fleshy fruits". Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list of berries would be a great deal narrower, but it would still run up against the problem of how to define edibility. For example, Pyracantha angustifolia on the list currently is listed as being too bitter for human consumption in its article. But the berries are used to make jam. [9] 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article is enough. desmay (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I believe the list should be remodeled to "List of inedible fruits that a notable person has ever tried to eat". It would be more understandable and avoid unnecessary entries. Svartner (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally arbitrary list. Many of these are merely unpalatable, denigrated, or controversial famine foods. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Psi Sigma

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

No external sources. Naraht (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obscure startup sorority that fails the GNG, WP:ORG, WP:PROMO and frankly NFT. The only source is its own website, and for all we know this is an outright hoax. Ravenswing 22:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After an extensive search, I found no secondary sources. Does not meet notability. Rublamb (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Gatewood

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

Non-notable college football player. User:Namiba 20:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts. User:Namiba 20:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Boston Globe had a two page feature on him in 2007[10][11] and another feature of him and a teammate in 2006[12] Alvaldi (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources already provided in this discussion, this Fox Sports article [[13]] also meets the WP:GNG as it contains multiple paragraphs of independent coverage. Let'srun (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources identified during discussion provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 procedurally. One of a series of problematic noms. Any established editor is welcome to bring this to AfD if they believe there is merit. Star Mississippi 23:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro Azul, Panama

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

Article without notoriety and apparently lines of promotional text about some residential project for visitors that is neither relevant nor useful. Alon9393 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Panama. Skynxnex (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the arguments you provide are actual reasons for deletion. Please refer to policy and be specific in that regard: not relevant to what? Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geschichte An article that focuses on talking about the refreshing nature of the place, the beautiful landscapes, the villas, the Internet and that the visitors are of American descent. In addition, there is a residential project that offers excellent services. This project has paved streets, internet access, ecological trails, rivers, waterfalls, viewpoints. In addition, it has restaurants, swimming pools and a social area with tennis court, basketball and football. Let me clarify that this is promotional and advertising. Alon9393 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Advertising can be fixed through editing. Please comment how it does or does not meet the relevant guideline for places, WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Geschichte Removing the advertising I don't think there's much left to show. Alon9393 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Basketball at the 1995 Summer Universiade. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Martiradonna

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

I tried to find any sources, but I only see a couple of database entries, and can not find anything close to a comprehensive coverage. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Italy. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basketball at the 1995 Summer Universiade: Not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect to Basketball at the 1995 Summer Universiade as a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 High Sheriff of Antrim. asilvering (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Rowan (high sheriff)

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

There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this individual, and there are no other sources suitable to expand this page to an encyclopedic level beyond stub length. Per WP:GNG, this should not be a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High Sheriff of Antrim. Or, failing that, simply delete. Per nom, the only sources (in the article and that I can find) are trivial in nature. Mostly representing genealogical and directory-style sources (or primary sources like the description of the church plaque) which are far from in-depth/significant biographical coverage. And therefore not especially contributory to notability. If the only material thing that we can say about this subject (other than he was a member of a militia and had family who were in the army) is that he was one of many holders of the title "High Sheriff of Antrim", then he can be covered in that article. (Being a title holder doesn't confer notability. Nor does being a JP or mentioned in a small plaque in his local parish church.) WP:NOTGENEALOGY would also seem to apply. Guliolopez (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ad suggested. Four passing mentions is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Spleodrach (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiishek Mohta

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR as far as I can tell, WP:GNG unlikely with all these doubtful WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Bonus: sockpuppetry. asilvering (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. asilvering (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- created by sock and is completely WP:GNG.TheProEditor11 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deleted because it was created by a sock as it doesn't qualify for WP:G5. I tagged it as an WP:A7, but the nominator apparently felt it has credible claims of significance but not sufficiently notable per GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam, fails WP:BASIC. Most coverage is the usual yellow journalism and churnalism only too common in the Indian media today. Java Hurricane 12:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam. Had the creator of the article not removed the speedy delete template, I'd say it falls under A7. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator didn't, I did. Someone in a media-facing job whose name is in headlines is absolutely above the extremely low "no credible claim of significance" bar for summary deletion. Doesn't mean they're notable, though. -- asilvering (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first three sources are YouTube which is unreliable. Every other source falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails as NACTOR and the sources assessment proves it easily. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's hard to rebut a thorough source review that finds the references lacking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeinab Norouzi

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reasonably accomplished on the regional stage. Women's sports in Iran isn't overly developed. Where did you do the WP:BEFORE? Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep in absence of a reply to the above. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to neutral given that this turned out to a real discussion below. Geschichte (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable person and has sources. Xegma(talk) 19:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither of the sources in the article is anywhere close to IRS SIGCOV -- they are two routine event recaps from the same competition, and the second link has a namedrop in a single sentence. SPORTSCRIT is very very clear that articles must have IRS SIGCOV cited, and the community rejected calls to weaken this requirement for people from less-covered regions or time periods.
I performed English and Farsi searches specific to each of the top 8 Persian sports newspapers.
Tasnim: only returned routine and trivial namedrop results (e.g. here, here, here) and direct quotes from Norouzi or others (obviously neither independent nor secondary) (e.g. here, here, here, here). Tehran Times: nothing. News Now: nothing. Mehr News: routine and trivial news reports (1 2 3 4 5), pure-quotes press releases (1 2, titled "Sohrabian [head of Iranian rowing federation]: We are grateful to the women's two-person rowing team for not finishing last"). Iran Front News: nothing. Iran Daily News: nothing. Iran Wire: very brief coverage of her displaying the Palestinian flag at the Olympics, but nothing actually on her (or even on this incident; the article just mentions it as a launchpad into nationalist and Islamist polemic), routine and trivial results announcements (1 2). Iran Press: routine and trivial results announcements (1 2 3). JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the analysis by JoelleJay, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A separate search revealed nothing better. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. procedurally. One of a series of problematic noms. Any established editor is welcome to bring this to AfD if they believe there is merit. Star Mississippi 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordi Camí

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

The entry on English Wikipedia entry is a resume which is curriculum vitae not legal, The sources are neither reliable nor independent. Alon9393 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Spain. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:07, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Massive Ego. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noise in the Machine (EP)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted by creator.

All sources are music videos, primary sources, and databases. Nothing found in secondary sources to support notability for this EP. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see only one review article - [14], otherwise nothing, suggesting that there is very little interest in the EP. Fails NALBUM. Hzh (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Massive Ego per nomination. Found no additional sources myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One of a series of problematic nominations. Any established editor is welcome to revisit if they feel deletion is needed. Star Mississippi 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FUNREDES

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

no encyclopedic relevance is verified WP:ORGCRITE Alon9393 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, Latin America, Caribbean, and Dominican Republic. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no encyclopedic relevance is verified. I'm not sure what you mean here by "relevance". Are you arguing that this organization is not notable by our standard for organizations, WP:NORG? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The writing of FUNREDES is very bad, it is written as an essay or if the language on the organization's website is not consistent or neutral, which jeopardizes the notoriety of the matter, one could even affirm that there is plagiarism in the article created That is not notable, it does not have independent, reliable or well-known sources, just by saying that there are no sources that prove the relevance and existence of the organization. Alon9393 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale has been offered. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 As it happens, the FUNREDES entry does not have reliable independent sources, and it goes without saying that it does not have any references. I will use the example of the band. I will create a Wikipedia entry for an organization and I will not put references in it. You would be in favor of that initiative. --Alon9393 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that it doesn't go "without saying". Your nomination statement has to outlined a policy-based reason for why an article merits deletion rather than improvement through editing. I'm still not sure what you mean by verifying relevance. You can't just have a few code words in half a sentence, it needs to be a full explanation that also demonstrates that a through WP:BEFORE has been done by the nominator which this nomination also lacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, Liz What is a policy? Because no one has taken the time to explain this to me, it is frustrating and I have seen AFD open without this requirement. Alon9393 (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, Liz I must assume that this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IVNFIL AFD by IVNFIL was created and they did not follow the policies that demand so much of me, and my AFD, explain to me and excuse my poor English, I don't usually speak it much. Alon9393 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy keep. Nomination offers no cogent reason for deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Rich The article still does not have sources about that organization, how can you maintain something without references. Alon9393 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you posted this, there were two external links that provide some verifiability about the organization or article content. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

It's hard to interpret some of the comments here but I don't think I see any editor arguing for "Keep" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoJS

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

Article does not cite any independent sources (except the Progopedia, which doesn't even mention GoJS). I was unable to find any myself. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progopedia mentions Northwoods (which doesn't deserve its own article).

GoJS is mentioned elsewhere, such as on modeling-languages.com:

https://modeling-languages.com/gojs-javascript-library-build-diagrams/

https://modeling-languages.com/javascript-drawing-libraries-diagrams/

And others have written about it from a business use-cases perspective, eg:

https://sub.synergycodes.com/gojs-ebook/ Simonsarris (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough for it to mention something associated with GoJS; notability is not inherited. The modeling-languages.com article describes it as our software, which strongly implies that it is not strictly independent. The ebook might be a satisfactory source (as described in WP:NCORP); I can take a closer look at it later. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another webpage, Synergy Codes describes nwoods.com as our partner's website. This strongly implies that an ebook published by Synergy Codes would not be strictly independent. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are a consultant shop and advertise GoJS expertise - the book being essentially an ad about their knowledge - but do note they also advertise expertise in direct GoJS competitors:

https://www.synergycodes.com/react-flow (note also the same "React Flow-certified Partner")

In case it's helpful, an example of the two (GoJS and react-flow) being competitors in the wild: https://www.reddit.com/r/Frontend/comments/u8v1w5/trying_to_create_a_tool_similar_to_this_image/ Simonsarris (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on react-flow, is there? So why on GoJS? IgelRM (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Northwoods Software and Sanscript look more established than GoJS, no reliable sources here. IgelRM (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Loraine, California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Canyon, Kern County, California

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable location. Was AfD'ed once before, closing as Keep because of some sources in the mining literature: [15]. However, all sources cited in the last AfD are trivial mentions, and all but one of them refer to Sand Canyon as a geographic feature (a canyon), not as a community. Nothing has been updated in the article since then, and nothing else could be found. Note that there is a better-documented Sand Canyon in Los Angeles County, making it hard to find information about this place. I could also live with a merge to Loraine, California, an actual settlement nearby. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing has improved and there's still nothing brought forward to show that this was once a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Loraine, California would be the best choice for this one. TH1980 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Granata

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions such as [16]. toweli (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Argentina, and Colombia. toweli (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 17:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heck, I can't even find a reference to him in my collection of traditional Colombian music, and some of that stuff isn't even available online anymore. This guy's no Jaime Llano González. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't even a regular contributor when I edited this article. Looking back, I'm surprised the lack of references wasn't an issue sooner. There aren't any in the Spanish version either, unless you count a YouTube video. Googling also brings up nothing. With my now over ten-years of experience, this looks like it was originally a personal promotion. No loss. WQUlrich (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply format shifted from an H1 to a normal bulleted reply with a bolded !vote to match normal style and avoid breaking listing pages, WQUlrich feel free to adjust as needed. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without context of notoriety or encyclopedic, I'm sorry but how can you verify an article without credible or existing references?. Alon9393 (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - no sources, and difficult to find sources. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the Keep arguments are little more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But after three weeks, there's no consensus to delete. There seems to be some support for renaming the page, but no consensus for me to act upon. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of piscine and amphibian humanoids

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

Pile of poorly-sourced trivia with no evidence of meeting WP:LISTN * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May need cleanup. Part of a larger series of lists, i.e {{fictional biology}}. Deleting this would leave a hole in that compilation. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this page as an adjunct to List of avian humanoids and list of reptilian humanoids, and to clean up a massive amount of overlinking in the mermaid article. Serendi ^podous 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure certain things need cleanup, but this page would be good for this website. @Serendipodous: is right about his claims. Outside of the List of reptilian humanoids, List of avian humanoids, and Insectoids in science fiction and fantasy, there isn't a list page for any Human–animal hybrid that would be in the beast people category like the beast folk seen in The Island of Doctor Moreau and the beast folk seen in Duel Masters (renamed "beast kin" in Kaijudo). --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can dig up discussion for this subject as a whole. I don't see any indication that this grouping, or any of the other fictional biology lists of a kind similar to it, are notable as a group. If discussion on this group as a whole can be found and show that there's enough for an article, I'd feel more confident with keeping this around, but as it stands right now this list is just a mostly unsourced collection of indiscriminate information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid navigational list. Far more useful than the category Category:Piscine and amphibian humanoids, since it allows additional information to be listed, helping people find what they wish easier. Dream Focus 02:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename to List of aquatic humanoids. For the piscine side, there's at least a chapter in The Body Fantastic and a paragraph in this Vice article, as well as many secondary sources on individual examples. These may not be stellar sources with regard to WP:LISTN, but given the recognized navigational value within the Lists of humanoids I believe it is in the best interest of the project to keep this list. Trimming of some non-blue-linked and unsourced examples can help with the impression of trivia. If one looks for "aquatic humanoid" instead, more secondary sources appear, like this web article, where I am not sure about the reliability; academic publications like this and this, as well as this book, which all have "mermaid" in the title but talk about "aquatic humanoids" more generally. Another source is The Stuff of Science Fiction, which talks about aquatic creatures in fiction in general, but deals with aquatic humanoids specifically for several pages, starting from p. 77. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Aquatic humanoids" is too general. We'd have to include undines, water nymphs, water elementals, and pretty much every sea god. Serendi ^podous 14:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When I first edited this page, I had tried to sort the piscine humanoids from the amphibian humanoids only for it to be reverted by @Serendipodous: who stated in his reversion edit summary "technically, if you merge a man with a fish, you are creating an amphibian, so the distinction between fish people and frog people isn't all that clear cut". --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. This isn't a real topic, and readers can't discern what it is. It's just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE bunch of characters that editors have compiled through WP:OR. Daranios suggested a good WP:ATD, which is to rename this in a way that it aligns with a real topic supported by sources. I could be convinced to support that, but it's a bad sign that nobody can really say what this page is supposed to be about. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cross a human with something that has gills. Where's the confusion? Serendi ^podous 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need multiple reliable secondary sources to establish that. Without it, it's just editors arguing their personal opinion about what the article is about. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999 and Shooterwalker - As it stands, the overall topic of this list is not a genuine topic that has sources covering it. That not only makes it a failure of WP:LISTN, but also makes the whole concept reliant on WP:SYNTH. Even the sources brought up above are on topics of a much narrower, more specific scope, and are largely covered by other articles. The proposed retitling/reworkings of the list don't really work as making it a list of "Aquatic Humanoids" is, as pointed out, far too broad and becomes redundant with other articles, and specifying it as humans crossed with gilled creatures is not a topic that actually has sources or passes WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: With which other lists would a List of aquatic humanoids be redundant within the framework of Lists of humanoids? Daranios (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was expanding on Serendipodous' observation that a list of "Aquatic Humanoids" is too general, as that would have to include all manner of mythological figures associated with the water, such as gods, and other folklore figures. So, an example of redundancy when you start getting that broad would be something like our List of water deities. We also have things like Mermaids in popular culture and other specific lists or sections of articles that cover specific "types" of what would be considered aquatic humanoids. And even if we tried to narrow the inclusion criteria to not include things like that, then there is still the issue that there are no sources that I can find or have been presented that actually discuss topics as disparate as anthropomorphized frogs, Lovecraftian monsters, and Aquaman as being the same subject or covered as a group. And if there are no reliable sources that actually group the concept of "humans crossed with any animal that lives in the water", creating a list here that does just that is WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the secondary sources already listed, there is also an important one in the 14-page introduction to The Penguin Book of Mermaids. It talks about our beings as a group, but does not use the term humanoid but rather "merbeings" or "mermaids/merfolk and other water spirits". With regard to the broadness of scope, I think these are problems which can be solved editorially: As one main use is navigation, starting from List of lists of lists this is a subdivision of Lists of humanoids, which is obviously even broader but still exists. And as much as possible, and without getting into original research, we should aim for a structure which leads to all humanoid( specie)s on Wikipedia. Daranios (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Redundacy with something like List of water deities is easily solved by just including the link there rather than listing them a second time, as is usual in such cases and has already been done for Merman, Mermaid, and Merfolk. As I said, an editoral problem that should have no bearing on the question of deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, there are secondary sources which do put "psicine humanoids" and "amphibian humanoids" together, like The Body Fantastic, p. 164. So I do not think we are amiss if we do the same. But there is also "The Pepe the Frog meme: an examination of social, political, and cultural implications through the tradition of the Darwinian Absurd", which despite the name does not only discuss Pepe the Frog, but also what sets "amphibian humanoids" as a group apart. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Serendipodous and the existence of List of avian humanoids and List of reptilian humanoids, but move list to List of aquatic humanoids. Enix150 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cleanup and a rename may be due. Been on the fence about this, but decided to get off of it. Like it or not, this page seems to serve a necessary purpose. No prejudice against a larger discussion about many of the pages in Template:Fictional biology as a whole.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest for a renaming? --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serindipodous and Daranios. I think the article has value. Does it 100% satisfy WP:LISTN to the letter? Ehh... GhostOfNoMeme 00:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that Daranois has provided. A discussion about merging with another article and/or renaming can take place later, but from what I have gathered this list is useful and notable and should not be deleted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glitch. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glitching (video games)

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

This is mostly sourced to unreliable places or is original research, and it does not appear to pass WP:GNG at all. While some might suggest a redirect to Glitch#Video game glitches as an WP:ATD, there's nothing reliably sourced in that section concerning this topic either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as unnecessary split. Glitches in video games aren't particularly different from the normal definition of a glitch. Sourced content can be added there if necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect dearth of sourcing to show why this split is necessary. Masem (t) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as an unnecessary split. Unless the section is removed (which I would oppose), it's a reasonable title for an {{r to section}}. We shouldn't delete redirects just because the section they point to is low-quality. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was at the title Glitching until immediately before this AfD. The nominating editor also removed a hatnote from Glitchers, prematurely to my mind (I have reinstated it). Note that "Glitching" and "Glitcher" do not occur in the article Glitch, while they do occur in the article Glitching (video games). But a Google search finds, in the first couple of pages, only software and company names, and "glitching" as in "glitches occurring", rather than anything to do with seeking them out. PamD 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if evidence were found that "glitching" as a gaming-specific term has actually been acknowledged by reliable sources, it still wouldn't be primary over "glitching" in the manner of an object encountering a glitch. Therefore regardless of this AfD's outcome, I don't think that will change. There's also no clear evidence of "glitcher" being a recognized gaming term. I don't find much related to games when I search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, though it doesn't change my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I propose slightly adjusting the scope for this article? Renaming the article to "Glitch hunting" might work better, because it's a more common term for what the article is describing and has importance in the world of speedrunning. Speedruns are getting more mainstream, and there's documentation available about glitch hunting on forums and social media platforms. I'm not sure if places like Discord or Twitter can actually work as reliable sources, which might be a problem for sourcing, but I just wanted to at least make the case for this article because many games have highly competitive speedrun scenes and many people in these communities spend a lot of time solving difficult and technical problems. Teafed .˰. (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend entirely on if reliable third party sources report on it. There's nothing like that currently in the article. Personally, if you're changing the scope, prose, and sources of the article, you're probably better off just starting over new (if it meets the WP:GNG.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some sources on glitch hunting ([17], [18]), but not enough for a standalone page. This still seems like it's better off added to glitch. I'd encourage that for now and if it gets inordinately large and clearly notable, it can be spun out again in a way that actually makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitch. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitch. This kind of glossary approach is just a bad way to write an encyclopedia. It's best to write articles about a whole topic, even if that topic has multiple names or facets. Readers get better context this way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitch. That article provides additional context and can lend some notability to the subject of video game glitching specifically. Jtwhetten (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Vidø

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

This has been through several lengthy AfC reviews [one version of the draft receiving 12 declines], before the author moved to Mainspace.

Author has stated subject has paid two editors to create this draft/article.

No indication of notability - sources do not back up claims on awards Qcne (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please have time to do research on the awards the subject is listed in before deletion ?

im new to Wikipedia and learning how to edit articles as I go

this is my first one and I plan to review others as time goes on Vanityorpride (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way to learn how to edit Wikipedia is by editing existing articles, not by trying to create new articles. Especially not for pay. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I have looked for sources, in Danish as well as English, and there is just no sign of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record, the draft was rejected (after 12 declines – talk about volunteer reviewers bending over backwards to help out the new editor!) and then deleted, not sure under which criterion. Vanityorpride (who has been paid to create the article) then created the article as an identical copy of the rejected draft, but without any of the failed verification and cn tags that various reviewers had added. Drafts have also been created under variant spellings, and I think it's a borderline WP:SALTing situation. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. This is not the way one goes about creating articles, paid editor or not (and especially if paid). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS - 2 of the sources are press releases, and the 3 others appear to be blogs. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FTR, neither Politiken nor Klimamonitor is a blog. But both sources are articles about a show, mentioning Vidø's name in passing, and they don't support the information in the article--it looks like they have been shoved in at random points just to bolster the number of references. --bonadea contributions talk 05:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no SIGCOV in reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadborosaurus

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

Canadian legendary creature / aquatic cryptid of dubious notability. Lots of primary sources used (newspapers from middle 20th century), and passing mentions in cryptid pseudoscience works. There is, however, a Scientific American article (blog?) tackling this https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/tetrapod-zoology/the-cadborosaurus-wars/ , in which a more serious scholar effectively says this is bad science. Still, it gives it a bit of notability. Can we find enough in other sources to warrant keeping this (WP:SIGCOV does require coverage in multiple, reliable sources, and so far I'd say we have just one?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Biology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, this book on Columbia University Press has a chapter regarding the cryptid. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources already in the article and the one mentioned above, Cadborosaurus appears in the academic secondary (tertiary?) sources Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology, p. 80 (has its own entry) and Seeungeheuer - Mythen, Fabeln und Fakten, p. 73-77. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that the latter is a translation of Monsters of the Sea. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:BEFORE. I'm persuaded this is discussed in enough sources. I wouldn't object to a merge if someone found a better way to organize this, maybe related to the folklore of the Kʼómoks or shíshálh Nation. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources presented above do show that this is a cryptid that actually has received coverage in reliable sources, beyond local and fringe sources. For example, the "Abominable Science!" book, despite the silly looking cover, appears to actually be a book discussing the real world origins of the belief in cryptids, not a WP:FRINGE text discussing them as being real, and seems to have quite a bit of coverage of Cadborosaurus. No prejudice against a future Merger discussion, as mention by Shooterwalker above, though I suspect that if the reliable sources are integrated into the article, that would probably not be necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Rob Burbea

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

Biography of a Buddhist teacher fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. The sourcing (both in the article and in WP:BEFORE search) is to Burbea's own writing and works, as well as sources not independent from him (eg the Hermes Amara Fdn). No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced paragraphs need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 17:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimalist article that does not shed light on the encyclopedic value of the biography --Alon9393 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 7 sources, none of them independent of the subject. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Other ranks (Denmark)

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

Weird incomplete disambiguation (WP:INCDAB) as a result from a page move/split in 2018. The dabbed entries only partly cover Danish non-officer ranks now. In a move discussion in 2013, it was mentioned that it's not clear whether Denmark even uses the concept "Other ranks" (e.g. there are also interwiki links), so I question the page's tagged WP:BROADCONCEPT worthiness and therefore its existence. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Disambiguations, and Denmark. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this pages doesn't serve a useful purpose, and such a page doesn't exist for any other country except UK. Also delete incoming redirect Other ranks (Denmark) (disambiguation).
Delete as appears not useful. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ting Tsung Chao. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Y. Chao

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are passing mentions, one ref is about his father, another is a press-release. No indication of signficance. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Taiwan and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most references are passing mentions, profiles and press releases.Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he inherited a company. That’s it. Notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ting Tsung Chao (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. James Y. Chao does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Ruiz

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

No sign of notability, this was a WP:LUGSTUBS created from a database entry. No sign of notability from a search. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Venezuela. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accidentally marked this as a cricket article when I meant boxing, sorry. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boxing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Light welterweight My search found no evidence to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NBOX or any other SNG. The redirect is to the most likely search target. Papaursa (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Irrelevant, the rest is expressed--Alon9393 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expressed how? Where? This is not correct English, please take more time to expand your argument, maybe even referring to one or more policies like Papaursa above. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alon9393, Geschichte is correct, this argument doesn't make sense, isn't grounded in any of our policies and doesn't rely on a review of exising or potential sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, @Liz This article is written/published as a Draft I only have to object that it does not have an encyclopedic context. Alon9393 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Papaursa. Does not demonstrably meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Keep: These sources [19][20] give more information on his career, with the former saying that he achieved at least 15 KO and that he lost to Eddie Perkins in 1972 (already mentioned in said article), being undefeated until then. This other article also mentions Ruiz as an important boxer along with Carlos Morocho Hernández and Edwin Valero: [21], although I have already argued in the past that Diario Vea is not a reliable source. Last but not least, this reference suggests that there's a regional "Nelson Ruiz Cup" in the state of Carabobo named in his honor: [22]

My experience with this kind of articles about sportspeople is that there should be way more information in bibliographical sources, but I'm sadly not in a position to confirm that in this case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing the notability in the aforementioned coverage. The first is a "50 years ago today in boxing" article which describes Ruiz's knockout loss to Perkins in a non-title fight. Perkins had lost his world title 8 years and 38 fights earlier. The second source is his database entry at boxrec.com (which shows him with a pro career of 11 fights). The third source is a passing mention of Ruiz, and the fourth mentions a boxing cup event named after him in his hometown. Sorry, but I'm not seeing coverage that shows me WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm striking my "Weak" vote after looking in Google Books and finding two more sources:

Salas H., Alexis (1985). Momentos inolvidables del béisbol profesional venezolano, 1946-1984. ISBN 9789802651443.: Ese mismo día, 4 de noviembre de 1972, el boxeador peso ligero Nelson Ruiz, imponía un récord, al convertirse el colombiano Milton Méndez en su décimo quinto knock out consecutivo (On the same day, 4 November 1972, lightweight boxer Nelson Ruiz set a record when Colombian Milton Méndez became his 15th consecutive knockout.)
Cárdenas Lares, Carlos; García, Giner (1990). Venezolanos en el ring. Texas University: Editores Torino. ISBN 9789802659920.: [...] con las presentaciones del entonces peso welter carabobeño Nelson Ruiz ante el colombiano Linfer Contreras y el mosca Luis "Lumumba" ([...] with the presentations of the then Carabobo welterweight Nelson Ruiz against the Colombian Linfer Contreras and the flyweight Luis "Lumumba").

These sources, along with the ones provided below, lead me to conclude that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. The references back that he achieved fifteen consecutive knockouts, comparible maybe only to Edwin Valero, and suggests he is a significant boxer in Venezuela.

Pinging @Allan Nonymous:, @Papaursa:, @Geschichte: and @JoelleJay:, to learn if their position has changed due to the sources provided recently. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the great work done here by User:NoonIcarus I'm convinced a keep may be the best option. I'm not going to withdraw the nomination given there are others who are arguing redirect, but my opinion has changed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, thank you! --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NoonIcarus. Remember that not a single Venezuelan newspaper from his timeframe has been searched. When we have in-depth articles over 50 years after his career talking about his 'historic' fights and know that whole events were named in his honor, common sense indicates he's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boxing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Light welterweight: Not convinced by the current sourcing that there is enough coverage here to meet the WP:GNG. The only source in the article is a database reference, while the only other sources provided in the discussion include another stats listing and a unreliable source in Diario Vea. We can only judge a article based on what sources are proven to exist, not uncovered sources which may or may not actually exist. The idea that someone has a event named after him should contribute to notability is also laughable to me as well. Plenty of people have things named after them, and that doesn't make them more notable than people who do not. Redirect this as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @BeanieFan11 - I was able to find two articles on Nelson. 1 and 2. A third article says a school was named after him. There's also a brief mention of him here, here on page 22, here and they talk about the boxing competition named after him here. There is more than enough to make a full article on him now, so I will vote Keep. KatoKungLee (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely meets WP:GNG and he is a notable boxer. I found another source of him in Newspapers.com, Ruiz, Palomino Rated Even for Bout at Olympic and another in Newspaper Archive KO's Ruiz. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources unearthed by NoonIcarus and others above. They constitute a pass on WP:NSPORT. Good work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of B-type stars

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

Seems redundant to Category:B-type stars, which is much more useful and complete. This list would only make sense if complete and, given that there are lots and lots of B-type stars out there, it would be just too big, unhelpful and hard to navigate. Furthermore, we are not a directory and it still fails WP:LISTN. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I have much more number of stars than that Category:B-type star, It is true some stars can be find in both, The page has only started and in about 1-2 Week it can be completed. Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wolf-Rayet stars and luminous blue variables are sufficiently rare that complete lists of them make sense, but that's not the case for B-type stars. There could be value in a list of the nearest B-type stars (along the lines of my suggestion to the author in a previous AfD), but that already exists and this title wouldn't work as a redirect. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SevenSpheres Ryan shell (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Abdullah1099: The current state of the article doesn't exactly support your first sentence. Procyon117 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that B-type stars are also rare like WR Stars, LBVs, Blue Straggler and O-type stars. If this is not true then you can do what you want. My main focus is type of B-type stars that can go supernova.Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that, see List of supernova candidates. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is new it will take time to be completed. i will complete this article in 1 to 2 weeks from now.Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest draftifying whatever articles you plan on creating before submitting them for acceptance, given how many of your recently created articles have been brought to AfD. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also AfDs usually get closed around a week or so after they've been created, so you might not have that long anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infact in the Luminous blue variables list , I had started and only added Eta Carinae and P Cygni Stars. Thanks to Meli thev, Phantomdj and others who had done most of the work like adding many stars, Changing the format of the list, Updated the whole page etc.Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could continue expanding that list, and others that have an article, considering they are notable enough for their own articles. Procyon117 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0.12% of 400 billion^[1] still means that there are around 480 million B-type main-sequence stars in the Milky Way, and they are far more likely to be notable due to their relative brightness. Category:B-type main-sequence stars contains 470 articles, excluding the main. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ledrew, Glenn (February 2001). "The Real Starry Sky". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 95: 32. Bibcode:2001JRASC..95...32L.

Comment This was not actually placed on the astronomy delsort. This has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. This is an unbounded list that could potentially include untold numbers of members. A "list of nearby OB stars" with a range cut-off would be preferable. Praemonitus (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what are OB stars snd what can be the range of these stars in the list.Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should answer your question on what they are, and two, that's kinda up to you honestly, depending on how many you actually find. Procyon117 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OB star article covers the topic. As for the range, I'd say 150 light years, which is just before the nearest open cluster, the Hyades (star cluster). Then again, the nearest O-type star Zeta Ophiuchi is 450 light years away, so maybe that's not such a great idea. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that there are lot many B-type star but, lot less than other types of stars and let take example than in 100 light-years there is only 10 to 20 B-type stars. It is many but is spreded in large distance like brown dwarf and rough plants. So, this list of stars is a better idea to note down all stars. Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Gurley

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

The article on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, Arizona, and Internet. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is decent [23]. The rest are about an impersonator of his that was banned from an arena [24], [25]. Having an "impostor" pretend to be you with coverage in the Washington Post and Huff Post implies you are notable? I'd argue yes. I mean, there are no Oaktree_b impersonators, but this person seems to have several mentions of them in RS, so he's famously famous. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning if you're famous enough to have people imitate/pretend to be you in order to get stuff, I'd say you're notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this guy (Dawson Gurley) is the impersonator, though? He is known for impersonating a definitely notable NBA player, Klay Thompson. The Yahoo article makes this clear. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically this person has gotten attention for pulling pranks, and has gotten local TV mentions and some notice in reliable sources. Oaktree b, the way I read it is that he is pretending to be Klay Thompson because he resembles him (probably getting close to a legal line in doing so). Your comment seems to be that someone is impersonating Gurley, but I don't think that's the case. This is a guy pulling a stunt - to me, not notable. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mjbmr wants to take back his nomination; see here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aware that the nomination has been withdrawn,but with an extant !vote from an established editor I think this needs more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there are three articles about him in reliable sources... seems to meet the letter of the law with notability guidelines unless you stretch what is non-trivial coverage. I don't think we should go into whether we think the person should be notable, that's just personal opinion. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what the article looked like before today, but the Washington Post, SFGate and BleacherReport articles are definitely WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources -- that's a WP:GNG pass, regardless of whether editors here may like or dislike the pranks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheremshyna (ensemble)

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

This musical ensemble fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. (There appears to be a dance ensemble with the same name, but it likewise has no SIGCOV.) I cannot find any evidence this subject meets any criterion on WP:NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ukraine, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mellk (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judea Samaria and the Golan – the archaeological survey of 1968

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

Single source hyper-specific archeological study that could be rolled up into greater article. Creater and main contributor was banned for copyright content, so may not be appropriate from that sense as well. Consider redirect to main article on the region, with light summary of the source. Sadads (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using Google Translate to compare this article to the Hebrew version, I think that it is a straight translation of the Hebrew article as it appeared on 18 April. When copyright problems have been found in the creator's editing it is usually through material that they have introduced. The creator edited the Hebrew version before making the translation, but it appears to have been to introduce two references (those are to a publisher and a library catalogue) rather than changing the text. So I think the copyright issue can be left to one side here.
I do have concerns about the referencing since no page numbers are referenced and the use of the source does not match the original article. Taking the edits at face value, it would appear that all of the information matches perfectly the single source, without any additions from the original editor. It is an unusual way of editing. More concerning to me is that this is similar to editing at Roman roads in Judaea. There several references were adding during the process of adapting the article from Hebrew, the use of which has not matched the article (see Talk:Roman roads in Judaea for further examples). On balance I am not confident that the cited sources support all the information in the article.
Concerning the notability of the topic, my assumption is that a survey of this scale would have been covered by numerous reliable sources but through what can be accessed online I don't think that is evident. My thinking is that we should be looking for sources that discuss the survey (its context, approach, impact) not solely what it found. The Present Past of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israeli Archaeology in the West Bank and East Jerusalem Since 1967 provides some useful information. Given concerns about the sourcing I don't think there is salvageable material for a merge; we'd be better off starting from scratch. I was initially going to recommend with a redirect, but I'm not sure much is to be gained as it is not a likely search term and three of the four pages linking to this article do so in the bibliography. If a redirect is the preferred method, I suggest that the target should be Politics of archaeology in Israel and Palestine#The Six-Day War. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have very few articles on archaeological survey projects themselves (if any – there isn't even a category for them) and in my experience they are almost never notable. That's because apart from primary sources (e.g. "Preliminary results of the 2024 survey of nowheresville") people tend to write about the sites that the survey found, not the survey itself. This could perhaps be an exception because of the unusual political context, but no sources evidencing that has been presented. And given the sourcing problems Richard highlights above, I agree that even if those sources are out there, it'd be better to start from scratch than try and salvage this version. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having a single source is basically the same as original research. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Labour Federation

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

Notability issue. Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 14:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little to show therefore delete. Alon9393 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Manhattan

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links presently in the article are reliable sources. toweli (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). toweli (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no enough out there to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stockly

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the majority of coverage is comprised of trivial mentions, and it reads as WP:ADS --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's fair to say the TechCrunch, L'Usine Digitale, and Les Echos articles are trivial mentions; they're all focused on Stockly itself. But I will note that every article from the aforementioned three publications is authored by a journalist specialising in covering startups, per their respective bios, and I put very little faith in that sort of reporting ("Wow! Up-and-coming startup raised $x amount and promises to do $y thing and revolutionise the industry!" is the typical calibre). The Forbes, LSA, and Challenges articles do all appear to be trivial mentions though. GhostOfNoMeme 01:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP,WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. No indication of signifance. Looks and reads like an advert. scope_creep^Talk 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sahin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are most business news than BLP sources. Routine coverage. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creep^Talk 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Look, in 2024, claiming that someone is a CEO and therefore automatically deserves a Wikipedia article, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 8 September 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 11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd go for a redirect to the business of which she is CEO, but it seems not to exist.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT so any future attempt has to go through AfC. This is a classic promotional biography attempting to conjure notability through WP:SYNTH. I found a single source that even winks at WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source, and even that's mostly about her company, so it's a WP:GNG failure. The rest of the sources are PR fluff, official bios, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Her book doesn't appear to have any reviews in independent, reliable sources, so there's no pass on WP:NAUTHOR, and I don't see any awards that constitute an WP:ANYBIO #3 pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkel Hagli Mossefinn

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

BLP article about an apparently non-notable 13 year old, written in Norwegian, with the only references to Norwegian Wikipedia articles. Article has already been moved twice to draftspace.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Datu Ali. ✗plicit 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Malala River

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

Not independently notable content fork. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for the specific terms "Battle of the Malala River" and "Battle of Malala River" returned only one hit - the WP article. No hits on google scholar or JSTOR for these specific terms though a JSTOT search for "Malala River" returned one hit here which similarly reports the event, describing it as a "brief fire- fight" (p 41). Calling this a battle is a wiki construct and a misnomer. The article, Datu Ali has a section The Battle of the Malala River with much more "detail" to the point of being excessive and unencyclopedic. The article is bannered requiring cleanup because it is essay-like. Overwriting the section at Datu Ali (retitled) with the content from Battle of the Malala River would be a step forward - if there is consensus here. I have copied this article's content to User:Cinderella157/sandbox 1 anticipating such a course. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Datu Ali, as this seems to be unnotable apart for their death. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Datu Ali; action does not seem notable in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyo Nishida

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played briefly in Singapore and not much else is known about him. Creator is indefinitely blocked. (PS. This is my last AFD today.) Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – He only played for the Singapore branch of Albirex Niigata, clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only played for a year with average or lower stats. Not notable. Chris1834 Talk 20:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikuma Osaka

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 6 minutes in Singapore as well as some amateur leagues in different countries. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks media coverage. References appear to be from non-quality sites, and profiles only.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and sigcoverage in reliable newspapers Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't even look like they played for three years in the middle of their career. Chris1834 Talk 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albi Koldashi

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

5 games in Albania’s highest tier, continued for a few years in a lower league. The current source #2 is just a squad listing and not significant. The only other source I could find was this. While that one is decent, I still think he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Regardless of whether it is significant or not, just adding one source is not sufficient. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has been playing for a while but it seems like sources aren't even wide enough to document details of career. Chris1834 Talk 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stiven Puci

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

Short career in Albania’s highest league, 4 minutes for Luftetari, then a loan, then 18 more games. I found very few sources, this is clearly not in-depth, and probably not this one either. Therefore I think he fails WP:GNGand WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If they are still playing, where is the coverage that proves it. Don't see much for stats from 2019 to current day...Chris1834 Talk 20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Ankit

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

Speedy tag repeatedly removed by socks so bringing here, clearly fails every flavour of WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article Traumnovelle (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete promotional, unreferenced, sock-suspected, Speedy tag removed everytime by the socks. Fails all notability policies i.e. WP:GNG TheProEditor11 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil International Academy

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Affiliation doesn't show notability also. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Bangladesh. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I did a before search in Google scholar and found nothing related - just 2 testimonials. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Platform-independent model

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

Tagged uncited over 15 years ago and please see Talk:Platform-independent_model#Is_this_really_encylopedic? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Platform-specific model could be bundled with this. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incomprehensible and unsourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is better to just trash this unsourced article than try to fix it. 21 Andromedae (talk)

Delete unsourced stuff need sources to verify. Xegma(talk) 17:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. This seems to be the preferred target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro (comics)

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

Could not find any additional coverage that would suggest notability, and I don't think the encyclopedia appearances currently included would be enough on their own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. BOZ (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another incredibly minor character that has only made a handful of appearances. Searches are not turning up any coverage of the character in reliable sources (and barely anything in the usual non-reliable fan sites at that), leading me to believe that the one source listed in the article to verify his creation date is the closest thing to coverage the character ever got. Not every minor character that has ever appeared in a comic needs to be stuffed into a character list (and the proposed merge target here is one that I'm not even convinced would pass the WP:GNG itself), and this is an example of one that has so little notability both in real life and within the MU itself, that a merge would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The character is already on the list, and there is at least some sourced info here which isn't already there (the list currently only has the character's name linked back to this article). The notability of that list can be discussed in a different AfD if you're really concerned about it, but for now, so long as it exists and is a valid merge target, I don't see why we shouldn't. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my concern is that given how very few appearances he has actually made in the comics, referring to him as a "supporting character" of Luke Cage and Iron Fist is a rather huge stretch. The very act of having him on that list is ascribing more notability to the character than any sources I can find can actually attest to. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. Does not seem notable in itself, but target can be improved by content based on a secondary source present here. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: M with a brief mentioning at List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Nelson

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All her notability is related to her emails and work with JD Vance. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No valid deletion rationale presented. If the veracity of the content of the page is disputed, that is an editorial issue, as long as that content is verifiable by reliable sources. Since the notability of the subject was never questioned here, and no BLP violations were claimed, there is no reason to delete the page. Owen× ☎ 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Katsobashvili

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

According to the recently published book Terrible Humans by Patrick Alley, a co-founder of the anti-corruption NGO Global Witness, this page is a wholly false biography. The book, in the chapter 'The Gatekeeper', states that it was created as part of a scheme establishing a network of false, or shell, companies designed to enable Dan Gertler and others to evade sanctions imposed by the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control in December 2017 for their role in 'opaque and corrupt mining and oil deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo'. Katsobashvili is also mentioned on the EN:WP page for Interactive Energy, another Gertler-related company involved in the scheme. Further details available if required.14GTR (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failing to assert a valid deletion rationale.

Clearly Global Witness has decided to make an issue of the truth of his biography, and their claims have been reported by others. And no doubt you find their claims and that of their founder credible. But an NGO being unhappy with a Wikipedia article doesn't constitute a deletion rationale.

He does get press coverage (some of which includes the allegations by Global Witness) like [26], [27], [28]. So it seems likely that the article passes WP:GNG (and you certainly haven't made the argument it doesn't).

I'm not trying to defend this guy, or advocating for keeping an article if it's just a bunch of lies. But if you have reliable sources demonstrating that parts of the article are untrue, wouldn't the appropriate thing to be to add those claims to the article? Then we get a full picture rather than just taking an approach that results in Wikipedia containing no information about this person. Oblivy (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept the arguement that Katobashvili warrents a mention in the article on Gertler, in the context of Gertler's response to the US sanctions but beyond that all we have is an individual who, seemingly, agreed for his name and photo to be used by others to avoid those sanctions. According to Terrible Humans he is not a career oil and mining magnate and Global Witness could find no trace of the companies listed on the WP page as having being created by him in the various corporate records they checked. Apologies for the delay in responding.14GTR (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but I think I've already addressed it. You have an NGO that is rubbishing Wikipedia's article, and nothing else. I not only don't see that's a valid deletion rationale but also think it would set a bad precedent to delete an article just based on someone off-wiki saying it's inaccurate. Oblivy (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Global Witness are stating that the article, and the false story it relates were created as part of the scheme to avoid sanctions. By portraying Katobashvili as an career oil and mining magnate funding Interactive Energy, it attempts to give credence to that company which was a key part of the sanctions work-around. The three sources you found also, by my reading, make this point.14GTR (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to the extent they do, they cite Global Witness. Oblivy (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a section to the article describing the allegations at the heart of ths AfD. In my opinion this should have been the first thing done with this claim, although there may be more granular WP:BALANCE reporting on GW's research about some of the claims within the other article sections. I remain firmly of the view that we should resist any efforts by outsiders to censor Wikipedia through off-wiki allegations, even if it's done for noble reasons.

Note that I was a bit hesitant about including the embedded WP:ASPERSION about the page creator being an employee. It's one of the bases for the GW allegations, so I've described their allegation at arms-length without adopting it myself. If anyone has concerns I think the words about being created by an employee could be removed. Oblivy (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caidy Nelson

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this amateur soccer player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Philippines, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's a member of Philippine women's national football team and a public figure. I think there are enough sources to warrant a wikipedia page. I saw pages less notable with way less credibility here. Sources cited are legit and from reliable independent news outlet. Medforlife (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No source in the article covers Nelson directly. JTtheOG (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too soon for an article. A child who does sports. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - per previous comments. Chris1834 Talk 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slap of Reality

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I could not find any sources about this band and the only reference listed links to a forum post. cyberdog958^Talk 06:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Florida. cyberdog958^Talk 06:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Found home web page, FB page, and other promotional postings, but nothing of substance. - Donald Albury 12:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this story, and there’s evidence that they performed in two states in touring, but that’s not enough for the consensus standards. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blair Witch characters

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. All sources are primary and based on the books. Couldn't find anything on a search that discussed the characters as a group. Conyo14 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a perfectly standard WP: SPLITLIST of characters. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even a WP:SPLITLIST article is required to meet WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Blair_Witch#Main_cast_and_characters, 3-5 actors/characters appeared in more than one film, which to me is not significant enough for a spin-out character list. Not opposed to a due-weight section in the franchise article though. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a character list being split out from a franchise can be a valid split, it would appear that this one is mostly comprised of a bunch of minor and/or background characters, many of which were only mentioned or appeared in the book series. The article on the book series, The Blair Witch Files, already has a section on the main characters, and as sgeureka said, the number of actually non-minor/background characters that actually made appearances or had relevance in more than one of the films is so small that a separate character list is really not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete splitting an unsourced section into an article isn't immunity from Wikipedia policies. The article fails WP:NLIST. Jontesta (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am generally not opposed to a page devoted to a list of characters visible in a franchise, but as Rorshacma stated, this is a list primarily made up of minor and background characters. To really justify a page it would need to be something more like the lists of characters for the MCU or Sailor Moon. I'm aware those are better maintained and sourced than others, but you get the point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. WP:AVOIDSPLIT is relevant here and there isn't enough well-sourced information to support an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 procedurally. One of a series of problematic noms. Any established editor is welcome to bring this to AfD if they believe there is merit. Star Mississippi 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moncho Iglesias Míguez

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

Very weak article, with references that do not even offer much confidence. If no other sources are found to support it, it should be deleted. It is not so much a question of whether it contributes or not, but rather that it has a very weak documentary base. Alon9393 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Spain. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:27, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Descent from the Cross (David Folley). Star Mississippi 20:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Folley

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and probably WP:GNG as well. The sources that I was able to verify are either insignificant coverage or not independent of the subject. I searched for other sources, but only found the artist's blog, a YouTube video, some mentions on gallery sites, and the usual social media sites. I was not able to located the article "Old Master", so I don't know how much coverage it includes. I also wasn't able to find "David Folley: Portrait of a Painter", but considering that it was published by Zap Art Promotions, I'm guessing it isn't independent and was probably created to accompany an exhibit. Overall, the subject seems to be a successful professional artist with the usual smattering of coverage in local media that you would expect. They don't, however, seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I would be happy to hear other opinions. The article about their painting The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) also seems to have questionable notability, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, someone went to prison for a rather nasty attack on a foreigner in Wales that has the same name as this fellow... That's about all I find for sourcing. No listing in the Getty ULAN [29] either. Sourcing now in the article is purely local in nature, not helping show the notability needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search on ProQuest identifies non-trivial independent newspaper articles, including the "Old Master" coverage referenced above : [30], as well as: [31], [32], [33]. Also Art UK has a profile page: [34]. There is potential for meeting WP:NARTIST here. I've added these new citations to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 23:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added sources, there is also a book about the artist, and enough on the page to meet GNG and WP:NARTIST. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails WP:ARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Prominent/beloved local artist, but WP:NOTFANPAGE. See source analysis--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Redirect to The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) as an WP:ATD. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426571633?sourcetype=Newspapers			465 word article on an exhibition. Does not support the claims it is attached to )DoB, graduation in 2005 from Exeter, current studies.Exeter University etc local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK)	✘ No
Telford, William (3 September 1997). "Here's one for you Mr Russell, Artist Depcits Latest Painting to Liverpool Playwright". Evening Herald.	?	?	? print	? Unknown
https://plymouthauctions.co.uk/		?	no mention of David Folley. Home page for auction house	✘ No
http://www.red-squirrel-gallery.com/artistsprofile.aspx?contactid=264437			subject's own write up	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1448865598?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK)	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426608904?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ another article in the local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK).	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/335007852?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK). "Morris dancers are immortalised on canvas at last'	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/895303940?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local coverage The Western Morning News ; Plymouth (UK). "Artist plans Penlee tribute to human spirit"	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/896397173?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local paper write up "Bravery of lifeboat crew inspires artist's new work: Painter commemorates 30th anniversary of Penlee disaster with tribute to human spirit" The West Briton ; Truro (UK)	~ Partial
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/?WCI=SiteHome&ID=7826&PageID=67992			fails verification. no mention of David Folley	✘ No
Evening Herald			? print publication Telford, William (16 October 1997). "Artist's beef at burgers, Painting protest at McDonalds". Evening Herald. p. 15.	? Unknown
The Herald			? JoJo (30 May 2008). "Preparing Robert's play an art in itself". The Herald. p. 7.	? Unknown
https://plymouthmorrismen.weebly.com/links.html			link farm for Morris Men dancers	✘ No
Evening Herald			unknown - print publication	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Redirect to the page on his artwork The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) per WP:ATD. The subject is a prominent local artist but does not quite have sufficient notability to meet WP:NARTIST for his own page. Redirect seems a sensible solution. Any issues with the notability of the target can be dealt with separately. ResonantDis_tortion 10:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a sensible WP:ATD. Changing my !vote to redirect. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Raw on-air personalities

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of WWE Raw on-air personalities

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

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#For weekly wrestling shows, subsections listing every single combination of announce team need to be deleted, there is a consensus on Wikiproject Professional Wrestling that articles such as these are not fit for purpose. They are mostly unreferenced or extremely poorly referenced, and are made up of WP:Fancruft ie trivial information only interesting to a niche amount of readers. They also break the guidelines of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 01:30, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Wrestling. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fandom-like content. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This simply does not belong here at all, can't even keep focused on the content involved with sidebars involving 'shows within a show', has completely uncited dates and fanon, and grossly violates WP:ACCESS with WP:SMALLTEXT and inappropriate use of notes. I expect responses to try to dissuade me because the worst members of WP:PW (not all including the nom here; some of them I've bumped into through other show and network articles though) maintain a hellscape I have no interest in ever interacting with, and that'll remain so with this vote!. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is no similar to the many of the other personalities lists for various sports which have been deleted recently, in that there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV as a grouping for this subject to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their respective show articles. Some content – such as regular commentary teams (I'm talking on the scale of the Ross/Lawler duo or Cole/Lawler/JBL trio) – could be useful in their parent articles, but not to the point of listing one-week-only guest commentators. The authority figures sections are already presented much better at professional wrestling authority figure, but I see no harm in moving the list of prominent show GMs there (so, no "Jericho gets to be interim GM one night because Bischoff is on vacation"). Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Askew Saddlery Company

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

Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NCORP. Significant coverage: Kansas City Journal (also [35]), Kansas City Times (also [36]), Implement Dealers Bulletin, The Atchison Daily Champion. Was apparently involved in a high-profile labour dispute in the late 1800s. 558 results on newspapers.com alone. 5 pages of results on Google books. There is a paragraph of coverage from 2021 here. C F A 💬 02:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the sources mentioned above don't provide sufficient in-depth information about the *company*, failing CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company was dismantled in the late 1910s. We can't seriously expect modern-day levels of anti-spam sourcing. I would argue the first two sources I provided do offer significant coverage of the company itself and are entirely independent. There is more than enough secondary coverage to write a solid C-class article with the sources I provided, and, as I mentioned, there is a lot more out there. C F A 💬 14:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines provide us with a mechanism to assist in determining whether a company was notable and the criteria are rooted in sourcing.

Your arguments are that on the one hand, we can't expect adequate sourcing from that period of time (over 100 years ago) - but this is the mechanism which the community has decided is best to determine notability. Otherwise it might as well be an opinion where all it takes it that someone says they believe it is notable and therefore deserves an article.

Your better argument is that you've provided two sources that offer "significant coverage" of the *company* itself and are entirely independent. The first source is from the Kansas City Journal, Sept 20 1925. In my opinion, it reads very much like a promo piece, with the company celebrating 60 years in business. The vast majority of the article focuses on the founders. You might argue that back in those days, companies were often or not associated closely with real people (not faceless corporations) and so writing about the illustrious lives, trials and tribulations of the founders was conflated with writing about the company - but we still see this sort of thing today too. Celebrities setting up companies to sell their coffee or fashion accessories and usually the coverage is focused on the celeb and not the company. Not many of those companies meet the criteria for notability either because the sourcing fails GNG/NCORP. But whatever about the merits or otherwise of the first source, none of the other sources meet the criteria. The company gets a mere mention-in-passing in second source in the same publication ("Admits Forgery Attempts").

The Kansas City Times from 7th Nov 1899 concerns the company filing a petition for an injunction, it does not provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.

If there are other good sources out there that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, I might reconsider my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the current discussion point between HK and CFA, ideally with some other voices to establish a consensus on that issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the sources but I don't see NCORP as being intended to apply to companies long defunct. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a dig through archive.org and there doesn't seem to be a lot of in-depth coverage from the time. There's half a column about the company as part of the (extremely uncritical) article about founder Frank Askew in the 1901 Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, and there's a a short front-page article in the Lincoln Star about the company merging with Harpham Bros in 1928. There are otherwise several passing mentions in biographies of people who worked for them - often with a comment that Askew were the largest saddlery business in Kansas City - and many routine reports of court cases, trade union matters and so on. It feels like they may have been a notable concern at the time, but I'd agree that the sourcing is extremely weak by modern standards. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we step back for a minute. The company existed, etc. The question is, was this "just another company" or was it a notable company. Are you saying it was notable because it was the "largest saddlery business in Kansas City"? I kinda doubt a claim such as that meets our criteria in any case (happy to be wrong on that though). Or are there other reasons why this company was notably in its own right, and not just because the founder was well known? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP states: 'The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.' Seems to suggest to me that strict NCORP criteria is not required and what should be considered is GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recognising biases doesn't mean disregarding or ignoring NCORP.... HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to take systemic bias into account but I don't think a Kansas City leather company is a subject that was meant to be covered by this policy consideration, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn after discovery of GNG-passing sources. (non-admin closure) ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted by consensus last month; G4 Speedy contested. Additional sources added by contester still don't appear to meet GNG as they are either results/routine coverage or interviews with the subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per sourcing found by KatoKungLee on September 15. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Wrestling, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Viva Van is currently active with AEW/ROH, the previous discussion was relisted however it was deleted before any additional discussion could take place, I've added an article from the Miami Herald, as well as several Fightful Select, Post Wrestling etc. links which we use on several pages concerning independent wrestlers. I think her role in the CMLL Women's championship match against Willow Nightingale is a good example of notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:59C0:5620:58ED:634F:B3D5:5673 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : Same reasoning as my !vote a month or so ago, just not enough to show notability. Match reports are about all that come up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Creator of the article here, my reasoning is similar to that of Thief-River-Faller. She makes recurring appearances in AEW/ROH (even if only as an "enhancement talent"), and has made appearances for both of Mexico's main promotions, AAA (appearing at their main event of the year, Triplemanía, in 2023) and CMLL (the aforementioned women's championship match involving Willow Nightingale), and as a result has been subject of articles from mainstream publications such as the Miami Herald. EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just last month. a previous AFD closed as Delete so I think the discussion would benefit from a little more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added more sources to the article where she is the primary topic. One source is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which is a generally reliable source on WikiProject Pro Wrestling's list of sources, as well as an interview conducted by Denise Salcedo. Salcedo is an employee of Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Fightful, both of which are considered reliable sources by the aforementioned list. These new sources, in addition to sources already in the article, help her clear WP:SIGCOV criteria. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews of the subject cannot be used to meet WP:GNG due to not being independent of the subject. Both of the sources you added were interviews with the subject. I'm still not seeing anything in the article which indicates the subject has met GNG in the month since the last article was deleted (which, if this is kept, should be undeleted and attributed to, since I don't think there was much different). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I pointed, my main concern is the sources. Wrestlers need reliable sources focusing on them. Most of the article is just WP:RESULTS, that means, reports about TV shows where she worked, but the report is not about her. We can use Cagematch and create articles for every wrestler on the planet, that's why we need to include sources about the wrestler. For example, AEW section has 5 sources, 4 of them, WP:RESULTS. ROH section has 1 source, which is WP:RESULTS (Her ROH career isn't notable). Impact Wrestling has one source, WP:RESULTS. Almost every match on the Independent Circuit it's WP:RESULTS (I don't get why her work with Hoodslam it's relevant at all). We can't just take matches from famous promotions to create an article. On the other side, it's fine to read articles from Denice or Miami Herald about her. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Denice interview has too little secondary context to base a BLP article off of it, especially so since in this instance it's published on The Sportster which is redlisted at WP:RS/PS#Valnet and specifically listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS. The PWI interview is literally just the raw interview on YouTube. Even if we count Miami Herald, that's still one source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article is a moving target as sources are being added and removed during the course of this discussion. Sources that merely mention an appearance in a match and pure interviews are not considered SIGCOV. A source assessment table might help settle the disagreement over the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more input (hopefully).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is an SA table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/mariah-may-vs-viva-van-added-87-aew-dynamite	Third-party industry press	WP:PW/RS; Personal opinions of Sean Ross Sapp aside, consensus is that Fightful is reliable	strictly WP:ROUTINE coverage of a booking.	✘ No
https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/fighting/article277229318.html		Mainstream broadsheet paper/online; owned by McClatchy	I have to skim between hitting refresh here because they won't take my Canadian address to remove the paywall, but this does appear to contain SIGCOV in a bio	✔ Yes
https://wrestletalk.com/news/aew-dynamite-debut-announced-viva-van/		WP:PW/RS; WP:TERTIARY gossip website with no editorial structure posted on the website	WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://www.thesportster.com/viva-van-women-wrestler-interview-career/	This is based on an interview with the subject	The Sportster is redlisted due to ownership by Valnet (WP:RS/PS#Valnet) and is also specifically listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS	~ Too little secondary context to base a BLP article on the English Wikipedia.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVVC9Phfx1s&ab_channel=ProWrestlingIllustrated	A direct upload of an interview with the subject	~ PWI is listed as reliable at WP:PW/RS, but this is a direct upload to YouTube of an apparently unedited video	Purely an interview on YouTube.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Miami Herald makes one GNG-compliant source out of what has been added since the article was recreated. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has Sigcov and she's currently an active wrestler for AEW, ROH, TJPW and NJPW. There's really no point in deleting this with her currently being active as the second she wins another title, gets injured, gets signed somewhere, retires or dies, there will be more coverage on her. There's also some more coverage if you search her name in Japanese (ビバ・バン). She likely also got a profile in the プロレスカラー選手名鑑2023 (it has a profile on every wrestler who wrestled down to very small indy levels in Japan in 2023), which would be another independent source. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple issues here:

1) As I've shown above, we only have significant coverage from Miami Herald, and that's not enough to meet GNG for any topic, let alone a biography of a living person.

2) Notability is not inherited from the organizations one works for.

3) "...as the second she wins another title, gets injured, gets signed somewhere, retires or dies, there will be more coverage on her." Yes, that is why we have a guideline on routine coverage. "Dog bites man" or, in this case, "Wrestler does [thing] wrestling" is not significant coverage.

4) If there are Japanese sources, please present them. It is not up to non-Japanese speakers to search for Japanese sources, especially offline sources, for use in the English Wikipedia. Again, BLPs have higher standards that other articles and therefore we must have concrete evidence that sources exist. Attestations aren't enough.

5) Databases or catalogs do not have significant coverage. If we counted those sources towards GNG, then we would become a database, which we are not. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage when a wrestler does anything or retires was not allowed, there would be no articles on any living wrestler on this website, yet alone anyone else. I can't say I agree with your interpretations of various guidelines.

There's a very big difference between working a local promotion and the second biggest promotion in the world, which AEW is. There's virtually no full-time roster members from any of the top promotions that do not have wikipedia articles while there's very few small local indy wrestler who have profiles. No, not every person who makes a cameo on AEW is notable, but being featured on AEW is a lot different than being featured in a local indy.

All sources of information, whether English or non-English, should be looked at when discussing articles. There are no deadlines. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that "coverage of a wrestler doing anything or retires" isn't allowed, it's that it doesn't count for our notability guidelines. Just because a source isn't good enough to lift an article subject to the GNG threshold, doesn't mean that we can't use the source in the article at all.

And yes, I agree that non-English sources should be looked at with equal weight as English ones, but people who don't speak a non-English language shouldn't be burdened with having to find sources in that language; rather, those who have the ability to understand those sources are encouraged to present them. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Kato, that's why sources have to be focused on the wrestler, not ROUTINE results. AEW uses a lot of talent for Dark, Elevation, Collision and ROH. We can't create articles just because wrestlers appears as jobbers on television. Just a few days ago, Collision included Lord Crewe and Ren Jones. Rampage included BEEF. If the wrestler is notable, there will be sources focusing around him/her.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Agree with Ghost. Even if she works, there are barely no sources focusing on HER. WP:ROUTINE states "News coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs," Almost every part of the article it's just coverage from the events with no focus on her. Her Impact match, Routine. AAA matches, ROUTINE. Her AEW/ROH work, ROUTINE. It's not just take routine results and create an article. Sources focusing around her proves what part of her career are notable, no handpick the events ourselves based on our criteria. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, it's just a collection of random matches. Looks like it's just an effort to include every match she had under promotions with articles. "Van made her Hoodslam debut in January 2019 in a match against Lady K.[14] She returned on March 8, 2019, with Shakira Spears, to face Trish Adora and Heather Monroe.[15] On May 10, 2019, Van teamed with Rob Hands to wrestle a handicap match in a losing effort against Da Squaaad. (No proof her Hoodslam work is notable, no proof her match against Da Squaad is notable.) In June 2019, Van teamed with MVP to defeat Da Squad. (again, no proof this match is notable) In 2020, Hoodslam's women's division, GLAM!, announced a tournament for the division's new Women's Championship, in which Van made it to the semi-finals by defeating Gia Roman[18] and Danika Della Rouge,[19] before subsequently losing to Lady K. (no proof why these matches are notable. Please, it's an independent tournament not supported by sources)". "Van made her debut for All Elite Wrestling on the July 6, 2021 episode of Dark, being defeated by Kris Statlander. (No proof of this match being a key point of her carrer). Van returned to AEW on the October 24 episode of Dark, where she was defeated by former AEW Women's World Champion Nyla Rose. (No proof of this match being a key point of her carrer) On the January 9, 2023, episode of AEW Dark: Elevation Van faced ROH Women's World Champion Athena but was unsuccessful. (No proof of this match being a key point of her carrer) On the May 31, 2024 episode of Rampage, Van faced off against AEW Women's World Champion Toni Storm in a losing effort. (No proof of this match being a key point of her carrer) On the August 7, 2024 episode of Dynamite, Van made her Dynamite debut facing off against Storm's former protégé Mariah May, in a losing effort. (No proof of this match being a key point of her carrer)" The AEW work it's based on WP:ROUTINE, no focusing on her or prooving these matches are important. Just prooves that she worked with bigger names as a jobber, but Notability is not inherited from the organizations one works for or the rivals she had. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Slamwrestling's article on Viva also appears to be a decent source. It can be found here. There's also another good article on here from Fightful listed here. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are both far better sources, actually. Thank you for finding them. I'll happily withdraw and I'll ping @Oaktree b: with an encouragement to strike their delete !vote since we have three GNG-compliant sources presented now. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those are listed in the acceptable sources list per Project Wrestling. They should be counted as RS. I'll amend my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ghost. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources identified above. Should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as an ATD. Too soon for an article but we should allow editors to work on a draft and submit to WP:AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nunzio Engwanda

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

All the sources on Google News I could find are all WP:PRIMARY thus failing WP:SIGCOV for WP:SPORTCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belgium. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 04:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added new reliable sources. --Eden10Hazard (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak Draftify- possible notability seems like it could be far off. Chris1834 Talk 20:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McHugh Forum

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

Cannot find reliable and in-depth sources. All sources found were either closely associated or were passing mentions in "Tales from the Boston College" books. Roasted (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roasted (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey as this is a plausible redirect, and I'm surprised there's only one mention of it in the entire article for such a storied program; I would suggest a "Venues" section be added to the article there. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ragsdale

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

Biography claiming "longest serving" but sources are extremely local, and related to public disclosure. Doesn't have lasting public signficance. Sadads (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Georgia (U.S. state). Skynxnex (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think a school superintendent is what's wanted under Political notability. Rest is simply confirming where he works and reads like a regular biography. Interesting tenure, but I don't see this as rising above all others in his position. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weakly: I accepted this article through AfC, but I realize now that nearly all other articles on school superintendents have some other notable quality besides being a superintendent. My mistake for missing that all the sources are local newspapers and that this isn't a particularly unique case. As a note the original author of the draft article hasn't edited since 16 August when the article was first created. Recon rabbit 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit No worries, I had to do a double triple take on it, before I realized what was going on! This is actually a really good case of where a professional probably wouldn't want their biography on Wikipedia, because they have far more narrative control in the routine public disclosures/look news. Sadads (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somewhat vapid as to content. Nothing here about what he accomplished, if anything, in his decade as superintendent. Nothing but details of how many times he got hired and re-hired for the same job. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are too poor (The Atlanta Journal Constitution is mentions only) to justify keeping the article, but there needed to be some decent sources, at the very least. For now, there are none. --Alon9393 (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete. There’s longstanding precedents from 2007 onwards that school superintendents are not notable, absent extraordinary factors that make them notable. One notorious AfD involved a superintendent of two districts in two states, who was an unindicted co-conspirator in misprision of felony and assisted suicide - yet that still wasn’t enough for notability. Unless there’s a clear change of consensus, then I’d expect this to be deleted as well. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Isha Sattar (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alon9393. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

System Technology-i Co, Ltd

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

Article about a company which doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP / WP:SIGCOV. It cites 19 sources but if you look at them, none seem to be independent reliable sources about this company. The first is an article about 100 companies doing exhibits at an event in Malaysia, just a passing mention. References 2-4 are financial reports (first party primary sources). Reference 5 is the company's defunct linkedin, references 7 and 9 are websites of the company's products. References 13 to 19 are directory listings on a business partner's website. The Yahoo article is actually a press release. That leaves only the (deleted) PDFs of articles supposedly from Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun. I can't track down the articles at this time, but with titles like "System Technology-i and Delivering training over iPad device" they sound like more press releases.

Admittedly there's a language barrier, and the company is apparently no longer in business. But none of the sources currently cited are anywhere close to being the kind of coverage we'd need to see to establish notability. Here2rewrite (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Education, Software, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator’s comprehensive rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator has provided sufficient reasoning for the deletion. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Mirador Azul

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

It is a very little-known group in its country and its blog sources give little reliability to the context. Alon9393 (talk) 23:55, 10 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Visual arts, Organizations, Education, and Puerto Rico. Skynxnex (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just glancing the first 10 results of google book search ("mirador azul" "puerto rico" surrealist OR surrealista) it is clear the group is well covered in academic literature, appears well notable. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman, a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Shanmugam Murugesu

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

Does not meet WP:PERP or WP:SPORTSCRIT. We don't create articles for every criminal executed. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Crime, and Singapore. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his execution was massively controversial (as executing someone for carrying 2.2 pounds of marijuana tends to be). Sigcov in several books from a quick search, see [37] [38] [39] all with significant analysis. Likely much more. Lots of later news coverage. Inspired a play. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above explanation by PARAKANYAA. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems clear that a WP:BEFORE search would show the continued notability of this gentleman and that PERP#2 is easily met. To those publications with sigcov dentified by @PARAKANYAA I'd add:

Ortmann, Stephan. "The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in Singapore: Structural and Situational Opportunities in an Illiberal Regime." Journal of Contemporary Asia (2024): 1-20.
Chia, Priscilla, et al. "Tracing the history of the anti-death penalty movements in Singapore." A history of human rights society in Singapore. Routledge, 2017. 17-35.

Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[LeDrew2001-1] Ledrew, Glenn (February 2001). "The Real Starry Sky". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 95: 32. Bibcode:2001JRASC..95...32L.

[1]