Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Czech Pirate Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vít Šimral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Members of the city council of say Prague must pass GNG, which this subject does not pass either. Sources are not GNG-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Economics, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Czech Pirate Party as ATD where his name is mentioned. Have you tried using translation by any chance? I also was wondering... Are there similar articles of politicians like him who pass WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Czech Pirate Party, there's even a picture of him there... Jdcooper (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete - clearly fails WP:NPOL. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as creator: It would help to see a source analysis/review in table. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:34, 25 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 and it appears unlikely one will emerge here with established editors split Star Mississippi 00:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How now brown cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It's well known, it's discussed in sources, both serious and comedic. Just "Not notable" is a cliche of arguments to avoid in AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This phrase has SIGCOV in multiple scholarly articles/books for its role in elocution instruction. Passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you tell us what those are? I'm not seeing significant coverage in the sources currently cited. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dclemens1971 I don't mean to be rude, but I'd appreciate if you could cite some sources here. The article only lists two somewhat scholarly sources. Toadspike [Talk] 23:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything to say about it beyond "It's a phrase sometimes used to teach diphthongs"? If so, what? If not, maybe it should be merged to Elocution or something. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elocution. Looking at the available sources in the current article and the AfD from 15 years ago, the available sources are almost exclusively uses of the phrase in elocution lessons. I don't see how we're going to get around the overreliance on primary sources, and I don't think this meets WP:WORDISSUBJECT. hinnk (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no proof it passes WORDISSUBJECT, as the two "keep" !voters have simply done a WP:SOURCESEXIST. Previous AfDs have not given proof either besides pointing to Google and saying "there must be sources out there!" Hint: there are none. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete I very recently used this article to assure a colleague I wasn't slurring him. I know that's not Wikipedia's express purpose. But it's not expressly not, either. I'd wager there are other situations where this pagelink might be useful. Plus, it's a "thing people say", so typing it should get them something here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, that is in fact expressly not Wikipedia's purpose. If you think there should be something there, demonstrating how it meets the notability guideline or recommending a reasonable alternative to deletion would be more useful than a WP:USEFUL argument. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant the purpose of assuring colleagues we aren't slurring them. I get how encyclopedias aren't dictionaries. There's not much here, but it's already more than a straight definition. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how the article helps one determine whether it can be a slur (or its pertinence to GNG). Nardog (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because you haven't pictured my colleague here as a black guy. And I'm not trying to say it passes GNG. Lots of subjects on this site don't; not as many survive two prior AfDs. Your "not notable" and my "it's useful" are both poor arguments. So we're even. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See here for backstory, now that you're "in on" the (half)joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By "not notable" I mean I'm unable to find reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I get it, trust me. I saw Pierre Viette with his so-called Ethmia pylonotella and Lorymodes australis earlier today, too. Sometimes the Inclusionists just win. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People can also go to a phrasebook to look it up, the question is how an encyclopedia article expands on that. So far, nobody has come up with anything, and the only keep arguments are that the article seems useful and that sufficient amounts of votes will allow the "inclusionists" to win easily. See WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stuff like Chōjirō, Claude Sionnest and Floating Foundation of Photography stick around despite the guidelines, with far more uncited material and far less attention. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but I did employ it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I haven't seen any Deletionists ever explain why burning this iffy little obscurity (or any other like it) might help. Help who? Do what? So many questions. I'm willing to change my tune for one good answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If standards are not enforced on Wikipedia by removing failing articles, then it sets a precedent that almost anything is allowed - ultimately dragging down the quality of the encyclopedia. People who regularly create AfDs (I hesitate to say "deletionists", because it implies an urge to delete everything) are often stereotyped as enjoying tearing down other people's work and being OCD about annihilating the encyclopedia. On the contrary, they are attempting to increase the quality of the encyclopedia by helping editors not waste their time on unsalvageable, unhelpful articles, and dedicate it to ones with heavy potential for improvement. Notability failing articles are often rife with original research and inaccuracy due to the inability to find enough sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sold The amount of unsalvageable and unhelpful articles I've Randombuttoned into just since we've met has been pretty tragic, and enough is enough. I'm still glad this potential waste of someone else's time helped me when it did, though. That was then. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is exactly about how that is not an excuse to keep content. Coupled with the false dichotomy between GNG and WP:USEFUL, you seem to have a penchant for arguing against your own stated position.

  I'm as much an inclusionist as the next person as long as I see more than passing coverage in reliable sources. In fact I nominated it precisely because I had questions about the phrase and I couldn't find answers in our article or reliable sources. We owe it to ourselves to keep out of the encyclopedia topics we have nothing to write about. I'll happily switch sides as soon as you show us reliable sources that don't just use, but discuss, the phrase to any meaningful extent. Nardog (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but rewrite Delete "How now brown cow" is adequately covered in enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, if only barely. It is discussed [1] here on JSTOR (albeit indirectly) and [2] here on Sage. The article as it is is very short and minimally sourced, and lacks sources that establish SIGCOV: one of the three is WP:USERG. Given the consensus with Irregardless, which I nominated for deletion, the coverage this has as a linguistic subject seems sufficient for an article. Like Irregardless, the article should be expanded to use the phrase as a case study for elocution, like how Irregardless is used as a case study for prescriptivist and descriptivist linguistics. Needs a complete rewrite, but seems to fulfil WP:SIGCOV and WP:WORDISSUBJECT - again, if only just. Reconsidering these sources and comments below, the coverage here is so meagre I don't think it passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT anymore. The sources for Irregardless at least directly mentioned the word, but these don't. I think it would still maybe be possible to similarly use "how now brown cow" to discuss the teaching of diphthongs, but its coverage in reliable secondary sources is probably not sufficient. The article is also so short there would be no point in merging to Elocution. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it "discussed"? The phrase is nowhere to be found aside from the title in either of those sources. There's not even a mention, let alone discussion. How do you suggest the article be rewritten when those are the best sources you can find? Nardog (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1: These pieces use the phrase in their titles, but they don't discuss it. They discuss phonemic awareness, not this phrase as such. Cnilep (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. But this AFD can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Critical discussion of the phrase here [3], example of usage here [4]. [5], usage of the phrase in genetics cases [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Used here in language analysis [7] and the phrase being used to train multilingual chatbots [8]. Origins of the phrase here from Scotland [9] with footnotes for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link [3] from Oaktree is the same article as link [2] ("How Now Brown Cow: Phoneme Awareness..." at sagepub.com) from Masskito discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Can you quote some of that "critical discussion of the phrase"? Nardog (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Responding to Toadspike's query above, a few sources (in addition to what I've seen cited above, none of which suggests a change in my !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike Acker, Speak with Confidence (Wiley), pp. 195-196
  • Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture, p. 295, short reference but authoritative
  • Andrew Wilkinson, "Spoken English in School," Educational Review, pp. 61-62
• Keep. I have looked through Oaktree b and Dclemens1971's sources above. Some are passing mentions which do not count toward the GNG, but several are high-quality academic sources that show the widespread use of this phrase for speech training in several countries. The "origins of the phrase" link from Oaktree and "Speak With Confidence" from Dclemens are decent. Still a borderline case, but I lean keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:51, 26 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!} 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Energies Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject is receiving attention due to its recent IPO. Anyways, after searching for in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, I was unable to find any. The cited sources are trivial, as per WP:ORGTRIV, and the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have tried to find old news which are not for the IPO, that was before. It might be more coverage due to IPO but I guess we will get more and more updates in coming months as this a listed company now. Njoy deep (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify the situation might change within a few months seeing the amount of coverage around the IPO. Broc (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with the points, due to IPO many news are around that too. Njoy deep (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All I see are press releases, stock analysis/prediction reports, expansion plans and funding rounds, i.e., routine announcements. The sources fail the WP:SIRS check and the coverage around the IPO does not guarantee notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This company has recently been in the news due to its IPO, with substantial media coverage spanning 30 pages of Google News. Notably, 95% of the news comes from reliable sources. Deleting this article isn't a valid option. While Draftify could be useful to some extent. Especially since I'm not able to build a policy-driven case for keeping this article, it's not the perfect solution either. Hitro talk 17:42, 26 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!} 23:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the United Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I feel this page fails both WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDB. Also, many of the entertainment events hosted by United Center are already mentioned on the article's main page. TH1980 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for United Center. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 26 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!} 23:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Scotiabank Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:LISTCRUFT and nomination. Unfortunately it looks like a lot of work was put into this list, but I don't see notability. SirMemeGod  17:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Scotiabank Arena. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:48, 26 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!} 23:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Rod Laver Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Indirect statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As suggested, the list as a group is not notable. Fails WP:NLIST. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Rod Laver Arena. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:50, 26 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!} 23:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Crypto.com Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No specific statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed a case of failing WP:NLIST. Also, notable entertainers and events are already discussed on the arena's main page, so having a list of each and every one is superfluous. TH1980 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group (and that included a search for "Staples Center"), so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Crypto.com Arena. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 26 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!} 23:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Spark Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No specific statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, this does not meet WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDB. If there are any particularly notable concerts listed they could be included on the Spark Arena page itself. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge while I agree this item does not stand by itsself some of the information would be useful in the article about Spark Arena and therefore I would prefer a merge rather than a delete. NealeWellington (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Spark Arena. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 26 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 Procedural close‎. This article was tagged for an AFD discussion at the same time it was draftified so I'm closing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Horror film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This does not appear to be a well-defined subgenre of horror films and, as a consequence, the article is rather vague. As the article explains, this new term was invented in 2024 by author and screenwriter Willow Summers who does not appear to be anywhere close to notable so it's not surprising that the neologism hasn't caught on. Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that this was draftified by CycloneYoris (talk · contribs) at pretty much the same time as the AfD nomination. Obviously this is an inadvertent situation; would this merit a procedural close as moot? (The revision IDs for the draftification and the nomination are only two numbers apart, and the AfD was first, but they are close enough that the article/draft never got the AfD tag. I nonetheless don't feel comfortable enough doing a NAC myself here as I otherwise might have — I'm not sure which process should get canceled out here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 20 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!} 03:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex officio delegates to the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endorsements for the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, this is also a poorly sourced list that essentially constitutes WP:TRIVIA rather than information of enduring significance. There isn't a similar article for any other leadership convention in the entire history of Canadian politics, so this is essentially standing alone, but there's no particular reason why being an ex officio delegate to this leadership convention would be a special case of greater significance than all the other leadership conventions that don't have sibling lists.
A political party's incumbent and still-living former senators and MPs would simply be expected to be ex officio delegates to the leadership convention, so that being true here doesn't constitute news -- and apart from the senators and MPs, the overwhelming majority of other people listed here are unelected candidates and party apparatchiks who aren't independently notable at all, alongside a very large number of entries whose "occupant" is still listed as just the word "Name" itself, rather than the actual name of any specific individual person. The list, further, contains hundreds of directly-embedded-in-open-text offsite links (which is not proper formatting for a list) to primary sources (which are not support for notability), with very little WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing shown at all.
This simply isn't of anywhere near enough uniquely enduring significance to warrant being retained in this form. If sibling lists for other Canadian political party leadership conventions don't consistently exist across the board, then this one is not more special than all of the others, especially not with bad sourcing and incomplete content but not even if either of those issues could be resolved. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 12 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!} 22:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not sure why the 2006 Liberal leadership is so deserving of an article; to be honest the leader was rather ho-hum and doesn't have much lasting impact in Canadian politics 20 years on... This does seem like trivia. There are hardly any coverage of this event in my searches, other than brief articles about who was running at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 19 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 provincial roads in Istanbul Province. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial road 34-12 (Turkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced and only 7 km long so does not deserve own article - no objection if anyone merges it Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Merge or Redirect, please provide a link to the suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No substantial sources exist, content is already duplicated at List of provincial roads in Istanbul Province. Reconrabbit 18:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of provincial roads in Istanbul Province. Not finding any reliable-source coverage of this road but no reason not to redirect as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:04, 26 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. czar 12:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George V. Grigore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced article about a Romanian actor, journalist, writer and university lecturer. I have added three references, but all are mentions of his name only. According to the article in the Romanian Wikipedia (also unreferenced), he has written 29 articles, but I can't find reviews of them. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, etc. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Film, Theatre, and Romania. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per Tacyarg. Axad12 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 26 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!} 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 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!} 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one COI editor who I think we can view as an unbolded Keep, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and COI. The Devil's Harmony is notable due to having won awards, especially at Sundance. The studio itself, however, is not. The studio is not even mentioned in the TDH article, while none of their other works are notable enough to have articles. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:32, 21 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!} 23:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ellis (police commissioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local elected officials are not notable through WP:NPOL, the one source listed is a run of the mill election report, which does not contribute to the subject passing WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, Politics, and England. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. The article is short and needs updating but is about a holder of a notable office who held the post for two terms. This discussion has been had on previous occasions, but do note that the office of police commissioners in the UK is different to that of a police commissioner in the United States. This is Paul (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the Staffordshire area is around 1.146 million. Compare that to a Member of Parliament, whose constituency contains roughly 76,000 people, and a London Assembly member, whose constituency covers less than a million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. As I have said previously, the consensus at the time these offices were created was that they were notable in the same way we create articles for every MP, MSP, Member of the Senedd and so on. I've also suggested that perhaps what is needed is a wider debate on how we deal with articles about people who hold these posts. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in NPOL that covers police and crime commissioners. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's something we should address though because these articles get nominated for AfD from time to time, and there's no clear guidelines for them. While they're not at the level of MPs they're also not at the level of local councillors. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. A police commissioner at this level is unlikely to attract coverage beyond routine spokesbeing reporting, and there's no claim of that in the article. Possibly he could be redirected to the list of officeholders if must but personally I'm not inclined to take AtD as a requirement. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 5 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!} 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looking at sources, which ones provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine local news coverage, mostly reporting things Ellis said or positions his office has taken rather than anything about him, is not sufficient for NPOL. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 26 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. Discarding the indef blocked account and the SPA IP, we're left with no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Schiemer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Renominating as per previous statement: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the supplied sources are not WP:SIGCOV about him LibStar (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Links appear when you do a basic Google search. However as per nominator, I also think those may not meet WP:SIGCOV criteria. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think some of the sources given in the article can count as SIGCOV, and as long as you have some sources that are SIGCOV, that many of the sources are just trivial mentions make no difference to the subject's notability. I can also see his works being mentioned in books and journals - [10][11][12], while those may not be considered in-depth discussions of his works (but not quite trivial either), they do show that he is known enough to be considered someone noteworthy. Hzh (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep honestly, I don't see a big problem with the article. It seems to be a musical artist. It maintains reliable sources reasonably concise, unlike other articles that do not have it and is more verifiable. On the other hand, the content, at least in its current form, does not seem to me to be bad enough to remain on Wikipedia, perhaps that is precisely what gives it a more encyclopedic tone. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:15, 12 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!} 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This one is definitely boarder line and could go either way. I think there are just enough RS references to justify keeping the article, but would not object if there was a consensus among editors to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see this closing as a No consensus but as I closed the first AFD, I'll let another admin handle this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting to keep the article as this artist fulfils the criteria under WP:NMUSICOTHER

He is a composer of a more experimental nature (rather than commercial) and is older, so there are fewer recent online references around his work. Much of his work seems to be focused on technology and creative development in experimental music, and there is scope to expand on his work and influences. 123.243.142.189 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)— 23.243.142.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Warnke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable, subject has held several local, insiginficant and largely inconsequential appointments. Article reeks of puffery and edits by interested parties Bangabandhu (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I corrected one source and did searches online, and found lots of potential sources. The facts check out, for example her alumni award, White House arts commission, Real Estate commissioner for DC, hobnobbing, etc. She’s well known in the lobbying industry in the capital of the United States, and isn’t merely a local celebrity. Oddly, I can’t find a source confirming that she’s on the DNC. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alumni award is of no significance, neither is nomination to the real estate commission. She's got invited to some parties and was appointed to a board, all typical of white collar lawyers in DC. No in depth coverage exists in any single article and she's never done anything remarkable enough to merit a profile. She's not on the Democratic National Committee, she has a position on the DC Democratic State Committee, which is about as insignificant a position in local politics as exists. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:30, 14 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!} 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 19 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) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Health and fitness, Buddhism, and Germany. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless evidence is produced that her publications have received enough attention. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I think this article is produced to create attention. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Two of the references are podcasts by notable people (Dan Harris and Sharon Salzberg), there is a book review in Spirituality & Health and some coverage in a Taos News article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs) Nnev66 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (belatedly signing)[reply]

• I’m with the Weak keep. She’s appeared on podcasts, was noted on the official VA website, and in other sources. I would not call this really substantial, though, more of a bare bones coverage. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 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!} 23:34, 12 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!} 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. The two podcast appearances are interviews with the article's subject and as such are not independent sources for the article's subject. The VA mentioning her for her work with the VA is similarly non-independent, and a couple of book reviews do not meet WP:NAUTHOR, as there is no indication that any of these books are "a significant or well-known work." - Aoidh (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Basically WP:PROMO. As noted by Aoidh, the podcast WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources. I don't see anything else contributing to a notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:08, 26 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) 22:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Breckin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bringing this here for discussion since Draft:Kian Breckin and Draft:Kian Breckin (footballer) had been declined on multiple occasions, and the editor who created the mainspace version has some problematic creations. I feel like this needs discussion to see if Breckin is notable. Star Mississippi 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Star Mississippi 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Sufficiently referenced to pass in WP:GNG and this version is better than the others as it contains at least one example of WP:SIGCOV and passes under the WP:NSPORT due to the other coverage. EnglishDude98 21:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NB that EnglishDude98 has since been indeffed for repeatedly creating non-notable footballer articles... GiantSnowman 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe a few sources go beyond the general routine coverage and discuss details about him. Enough for WP:BASIC. And he is playing games. Govvy (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – A year later and there is still no SIGCOV just routine transfer stories. Dougal18 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm seeing one good source at most when disregarding stats sites and WP:ROUTINE coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage falls very short of GNG, with just routine transactional news and non-SIGCOV YOUNGATH-failing pieces. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article seems to go beyond routine transfer coverage toward WP:SIGCOV, but otherwise there's not enough for WP:GNG. I'd normally say draftify since it seems like just a case of WP:TOOSOON, but that was the previous AfD result and it was not respected. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:14, 26 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!} 23:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Young Jimmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This autobiography was unilaterally moved to mainspace against the WP:COIEDIT guideline. There is coverage of his songs sourced in the article, but the short length and promotional tone (e.g. as seen here) makes it pretty clear these articles are derived from press releases, and are therefore not independent. Mach61 19:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Mach61 19:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't take the time to read all the edits on the article clearly, you just found this article made a few deletion edits and decided to nominate it for deletion all in a rush to judgement. It only took you a day. This article was cut short by another biased editor thats why its short. All of the articles are independent sources check again. Youngjimmymusic88 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why is the deletion template missing, that's a no-no. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your website is hardly independent. The rest are about as unhelpful in proving notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've restored the AfD template. Don't remove it until this discussion is done. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hardly any coverage in RS. Source is a RS, but it's barely half a page... That's all I can find [13], rest are non-RS, mostly primary sourcing. This person seems to be using wiki as PROMO. No charted singles, no awards won, not much of any kind of indication that this person is notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 400 subscribers on youtube and 100 something daily listens on spotify do not indicate notability, further proving my point. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User Youngjimmymusic88 keeps removing the AfD tags, I've restored it once, they did it again and another user restored the tag, again... Can we please protect the page so it gets locked down until this AfD is over? Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made a request for protection here (I wasn't aware I could do that with Twinkle) [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet any one of the twelve criteria for inclusion at WP:NMUSIC. Not one in-depth solid independent reliable source that I can see. Blatant and unrelenting self-promotion as specifically strongly discouraged, violates our fundamental pillar of neutrality. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He's been hanging around the edges of the NYC scene for many years, with some minor accomplishments like session work and appearing on a reality show, and his recent solo work got a little notice. But there is simply not enough for an encyclopedic article, which must be based on significant and reliable in-depth coverage and not just his own self-promotions and minor media appearances. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 25 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) 22:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeamlessHR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After speedy deletion for being promotional and then numerous declines at AfC, SPA feels this is notable and moved to the mainspace so here we are. References fail WP:ORGCRIT and a WP:BEFORE only finds mentions, self-promotion (e.g., interviews), and routine announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: after a several-page search on Google, all I could find was either the company page or mentions on other company pages (WP:GNG). Failure of WP:ORGCRIT as well. SirMemeGod  21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I support this isn’t ready for mainstream yet, I started the page initially and after it was sent back to draft, I re-read the rules and identified that it wasn’t ready yet.B.Korlah (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources fail the general notability guidelines for organisations. Best, Reading of Beans 07:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep : I support this article should be kept. I found articles that qualify them for WP:ORGCRIT hereand thought I'd share, that was what prompted me to bring back article.

  Please take a look and let me know what your thoughts are:

  https://www.cnbcafrica.com/media/6352653755112/how-cost-of-living-crisis-impacts-workforce-productivity/

  https://www.cnbcafrica.com/media/6291598193001/seamlesshr-raises-10mn-in-series-a-funding/

  https://nairametrics.com/2022/06/07/why-70-of-gen-z-employees-wont-stay-more-than-2-years-on-a-job-report/

  https://businesspost.ng/jobs/investors-pump-10m-into-seamlesshr-for-expansion/

  https://techcabal.com/2022/01/12/tlcom-capital-backs-seamlesshr/

  Thanks for all The Terex (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources are routine business coverages and press releases. They can be used to verify informations but does not constitute to notability. Best, reading beans 10:43, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesotho Women's League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence this Lesotho football league meets WP:NORG or WP:NSPORT. There's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent, secondary sources. (In contesting the PROD, the page creator said "I want to recall that this article is a stub and not an article with a high coverage so I don't think it should be deleted," which is not a particularly strong rationale for keeping an article about a non-notable subject.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is certainly coverage to be found at the official website of the Lesotho Football Association, the English language Metro magazine. That's not to mention any coverage that's offline or in Sesotho which cannot be accessed. Even if I wasn't certain coverage existed, I would WP:IAR keep; we have nearly all other national top-level women's leagues, might as well be comprehensive. Mach61 16:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mach61 is the league actually called “Women’s Super League”? If so then no wonder I couldn’t find coverage under the name on the article. We may need a page move instead of a deletion discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dclemens1971 May I suggest you withdraw this discussion and move the page? Mach61 02:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mach61 yes, I know all about withdrawing nominations. Can you confirm that this is indeed the formal name of this organization? The website link you added above is not working. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dclemens1971 yes, it's with the google search site:lefa.co.ls "women super" Mach61 02:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; page will be moved to correct title following closure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:08, 21 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 Arabella Advisors. Star Mississippi 22:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Of the five sources cited, only one is actually about Kessler, and it's an interview. A Google News search yielded some obituaries about other people with the same name, and this article, but that's all. This could be merged into Arabella Advisors but there's really nothing of value to merge. A redirect could work too. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per shit sources and the WP:TEA request. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Babysharkboss2: What criterion for speedy deletion do you think this meets? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like nom, I come by way of the request at the Teahouse from someone claiming to be Kessler (I know this doesn't affect the discussion; just saying for transparency). And like nom, I have done my own search and failed to find WP:SIGCOV in RS. Because I can't decide which would be the better redirect target—Arabella Advisors or the Hopewell Fund that it manages—I am !voting for straightforward deletion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete there's almost enough sourcing for article. Probably not right now and I weigh good faith requests for deletion in cases like this fairly highly. I would oppose a redirect since there are other Eric Kesslers mentioned in various articles as they're all dab mentions, a dab page would be questionable as well, for now. Skynxnex (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I found 25 good sources (at Talk:Eric Kessler), more than enough to expand the article. (P.S. subject is User:EJKessler) 69.181.17.113 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr. Kessler himself said on WP:TEAHOUSE that many of those sources aren't even about him. There are a lot of Eric Kesslers, some of them are dead, and some are evidently family members. I said basically the same thing in my deletion nomination. You can find a lot of sources, but which ones are actually significant coverage about this Eric Kessler? You have failed to identify any. And many of those in your list are merely trivial mentions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Teen, Eric Kessler, takes on grant in try to save whales. Mar. 23, 1989, p. 16. Highland Park News, Highland Park, Illinois 69.181.17.113 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have got to be kidding. That isn't even a source, that's a directory listing, and may not even be about him. You're grasping at straws. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  from the card catalog of Highland Park Public Library 494 Laurel Avenue Highland Park, IL 60035 69.181.17.113 (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Kessler himself said on WP:TEAHOUSE that many of those sources aren't even about him"

  I checked them all, look for yourself, they are all related to him

  69.181.17.113 (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  50 articles from WP:RS about source of family wealth, his activism in high school and college, his D.C. public life, his D.C. restaurants, his charity activities in Boulder, D.C., and Highland Park. ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You listed trivial mentions as well as directory listings, you failed to verify they're the same person. So no, you didn't check them, you just provided a dump from a search. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and optionally merge to Arabella article, all sources talk about him exclusively as its founder. He probably merits a sentence or two in there somewhere, but not his own article unless far more significant coverage about this Eric Kessler is found. (I likewise came here from the Teahouse discussion). Rusalkii (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arabella Advisors, which appears to comprise the vast bulk of Kessler's notability in the past 20 years. Per WP:ATD, a redirect is more appropriate than outright deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Arabella Advisors – The subject does not have enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arabella Advisors. A sentence or two about him in Arabella Advisors would probably help contextualize his part, but there's not much "here" here for an article about him.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete or Redirect: I went through and checked every source added to the talk page: a total of two of them were significant mentions that were clearly about him. A Capitol Research center article and Worth magazine interview. The first is questionable as a source given it invites Heritage Foundation people to talk on things. The second is good, but is already used in the article. There appears to be, after a lot of searching by the person who added those articles to the talk page, one source that covers Kessler reliably, so there isn't a basis for an article. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, he asked Wikipedia to delete it. Any reasonable Keep vote here will have to name secondary and reliable sources clearly about him that give significant coverage. I also think coverage of environmentalism in high school in 1989 (several sources listed on the talk page), whether it is about him or not, can be excluded from consideration. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outright deletion is absolutely not called for. I agree Kessler doesn't warrant a stand-alone article, but even if most of his notability stems from Arabella, he is by no means a low-profile individual or non-public figure. Inside Philanthropy named him one of the 100 Most Powerful Players in Philanthropy in 2021. He's written several articles for HuffPost, and here he is writing in Politico). Here is is interviewed on NPR in 2005. He is an integral aspect of Arabella and various subsidiaries he founded and/or chaired (e.g. Hopewell Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, New Venture Fund) such that his name is a very plausible search term and wikilink target. Tablet Magazine gives significant background detail on Kessler in a 2022 article, as does, to a lesser extent, Inside Philanthropy in 2019. A redirect with a few sentences on Kessler's background and role in Arabella make sense. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say I opposed a redirect -- redirecting or merging works just as well for me. I think the Tablet Magazine article and the Worth Magazine article make 1.5-2 good sources, total. I don't understand what you mean by adding a few sentences to the redirect, though -- do you mean in the target article? Mrfoogles (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as a cheap alternative to deleting, or a very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 23 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 22:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Kirin Cup Soccer squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

We typically don't keep squads from the many invitational or smaller-scale tournaments around the world. I found some precedents for deletion here, here, here and here, and others too I'm sure. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2022 Kirin Cup Soccer. Lâm (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Not worth merging. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and oppose merging, as the squad lists are just indiscriminate information. The squad list article clearly fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 22 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. A move/rename does not require extension of AfD Star Mississippi 22:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People's Liberation Party-Front of Turkey/Revolutionary Coordination Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As can be seen from the cite on the Turkish article this was just one of many many far left parties in Turkey. What makes this one notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: +Move to a shorter name such as "People's Liberation Party-Front of Turkey (not a combination of multiple names). There's vast coverage of THKP-C: [15][16] Searching other names might return even more sources. Aintabli (talk) 16:50, 18 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 19:10, 19 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!} 18:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mission of Gravity. Some part of the text can be salvaged, and the novel is the main "user" of Mesklin. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mesklin gets a fair amount of discussion in literature about science fiction (mostly in the context of Mission of Gravity). It is generally considered a (or even the) prototypical example of hard science fiction worldbuilding. Some examples:
  • The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places p. 199
  • The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction p. 87
  • The Science in Science Fiction p. 56
  • How Space Physics Really Works: Lessons from Well-Constructed Science Fiction p. 31
  • A Companion to Science Fiction p. 195

There are also things like "Applying Science to Fiction: A Look at the Fictional Planet Mesklin" (which I am unfortunately not able to read the full text of), and much, much more is available by simply searching for "Mesklin" at the Internet Archive (I haven't read it in full, but the first hit leads to Donald M. Hassler's chapter "The Irony in Hal Clement's World Building" in Science Fiction Dialogues, which covers Mesklin for several pages). I don't think WP:Notability is seriously in question here, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the fictional planet gets more attention as the point of focus in the secondary literature than the story it first appeared in. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Clarityfiend to Mission of Gravity. WP:BEFORE shows that the reception of the novel its science are covered in the same scope. Both articles are under sourced and will improve through a merge, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I have located a fair number of sources providing coverage of Mesklin and have begun the process of rewriting and expanding the article based on these sources. Based on what I have found, I think merging this article with the Mission of Gravity article would be misguided. At minimum, I would suggest relisting this discussion to give more time for rewriting and expanding the article so we can make as informed a decision on the matter as possible. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 18 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 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mission of Gravity as not requiring a split. Coverage of it in secondary sources appears trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mission of Gravity: per Clarityfiend. I did find some coverage (particularly from Harvard Uni), which is why I'd support a merge rather then a flat-out deletion. SirMemeGod  20:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  Keep per WP:HEY. Great work on improving the article. SirMemeGod  16:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mesklin is also the name of the book series comprised of Mission of Gravity, Star Light and Close to Critical, so it could hypothetically be reframed to stay. However, the latter two books show the weight and detail that should be given to the planetory setting, meaning the current article is excessive and relies to much on WP:PRIMARY sources to really stand on its own. I've also read the summary of MoG: It's the science that drives the story, not the characters. The world is the plot.. In that way, I am leaning towards merge the sole planet article but keep as a book series article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced a series article is super needed vs. just a section in Mission of Gravity detailing the book's sequels. Ultimately Mission of Gravity just needs some major expansion to detail its apparent importance, as right now it's start-class. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to Keep per WP:HEY. Anything else can be solved editorially (if it even needs solving). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I am good merging to Mission of Gravity. Jontesta (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update 2 I have located sources and then sourced, expanded, and rewritten the article almost from scratch based on those sources. There is still some polishing to do (I haven't really started on the WP:LEAD, for instance), but based on what I have managed to do with the article thus far I stand by my previous assessment that merging it with Mission of Gravity would be misguided (not all of the information relates to that book, for one thing). I invite @Jontesta, Clarityfiend, Shooterwalker, Zxcvbnm, Sir MemeGod, and Sgeureka: to give it another look. TompaDompa (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:HEY. I have struck out my previous !vote, as TompaDompa has put their money where their mouth is and successfully improved the article drastically. It's now one of the top articles on a fictional planet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 25 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!} 03:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Urquhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was refunded following soft deletion (see previous discussion here). Despite being refunded nearly a year ago, there's no addition of WP:SIGCOV, and none could be found in a search. Without WP:SIGCOV, this subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. (Meanwhile, the subject appears to have been dropped from the Tasman Mako squad, so additional coverage is not likely to be forthcoming.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, South Africa, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 13 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 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:SIGCOV. SirMemeGod  20:01, 19 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 Goa cricketers as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 22:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agam Manohar Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This biography of a businessman and former youth cricketer fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. There is no WP:SIGCOV of Pandit, only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of his participation on a team, and no WP:SIGCOV of his business career either. At best it's WP:BLP1E for the U-15 Cricket World Cup (but that's not even a valid redirect since there's no page on that competition), but even then he doesn't qualify for a standalone page. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Cricket, India, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. He did play cricket at senior domestic level for Goa, making two first-class and List A appearances apiece; however, he didn't do much in these matches. A redirect to List of Goa cricketers is a suitable WP:ATD. AA (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. All sources are very poor with stat, an entry, passing mention about sitting out of the game, another passing mention that just says, Agam Pandit and ADC Energy Prepare for COP28, and last one about being appointed as selector and the end note of this source says "The above press release has been provided by VMPL. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same." There is no significant coverage of his role as businessman. No significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as cricketer. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NBIO, WP:NSPORT. RangersRus (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. – References are passing mentions, press releases, etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:15, 21 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. The article has changed substantially since I nominated it for deletion. Thank you User:Guliolopez for all the research! Brandon (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daon, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Sources are all trivial mentions of the company. Brandon (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Ireland. Brandon (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't yet completed a full WP:BEFORE (to establish whether there are other/independent/reliable sources "out there" which can establish notability and support the text). But, per nom, the sources within the article are far from ideal. Being either trivial passing mentions (where the industry news coverage is substantially about something else and the subject org is barely mentioned in passing). Or sources which are far from independent (company press releases, promotional webpages from partner companies, interviews with the company CEO, etc). To establish notability of this (250 person? 11 million turnover?) company... Guliolopez (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have now undertaken a more complete WP:BEFORE. And have identified and added more than a few examples of independent, reliable and verifiable news sources. Including the Irish Times, Irish Independent and New York Times. The latter two dealing with the 2006 appointment of Tom Ridge and sales wins (around the same time) in US airport security use cases. While, at time of nom, the article was almost entirely based on primary sources, press releases and ROTM business news coverage, that is no longer the case. Guliolopez (talk) 13:52, 13 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!} 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources added by User:Guliolopez does show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, enough to establish the notability required by WP:GNG and WP:CORP. - Aoidh (talk) 16:58, 25 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. Additional sources were located after nomination. (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadono Jūkurō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and content is just very limited CV/Resume type material. Regarding potential SNG, his largest thing was being Chairman of the Okura Gumi corporation. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't find coverage in Jstage (an index of Japanese journals) for a railway engineer. There is some coverage about a lighting/electrical engineer [17], none seem to be about this person. Coverage in the article is only one source, which isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are, in fact, several links discussing this person at the link you gave, although I didn't look through all of them: p. 12 of this one, p. 74 of this one. These were the first ones that came up when I switched the search to focus on economic history. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company that he led for 20 years, now Taisei Corporation, constructed Tokyo's first subway line and Frank Lloyd Wright's New Imperial Hotel in the middle of his tenure, which is why his name mostly comes up in searches on railway history and international tourism. There are this and this and several other biographies in books related to Keio online, quite a bit of discussion of his relationship with subway/railway development in Tokyo in this book and this book, notes on the relationship between Japanese and American baseball (and the national railway baseball team) in this book, and somewhat passing mention of his arguments on the relationship between steel and the army here. I don't really feel the article itself is in such bad condition. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekimasu's sources and analysis. --Cavarrone 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dekimasu’s sources - there seems to be a lot of stuff out there about him which prove notability, as you’d expect from the leader of a major corporation during a historically important period of development. Given that the standard for notability is that sources exist in the world, NOT that they are currently included in the article as written, this seems to be an obvious keep, with room for future editors to work to improve the article later using those available sources. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While Kadono has received attention from a few intellectuals so far, he has been honored by the Chilean government for his commitment to construction. It's also a rare testimony to Chile–Japan relations in the first half of the 20th century as well. --JOT news (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject looks notable based on @Dekimasu’s source analysis. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:12, 21 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 22:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle, additionally no fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A total loss of an aircraft is a significant event and I don't think accident articles need to be deleted just because there were no fatalities. Many aircraft accidents have a "fairly short news cycle" and once a final investigation report has been issued, they usually disappear altogether. Articles about aircraft accidents are useful as they elucidate what the causes were. This one could easily have ended with hundreds dead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while i do support some of your causes, just because it could've left hundreds dead doesnt mean it should justify as an article. At the least this should be merged, near tragedy doesnt warrant nor neccesitate an article, the accident is just a simple hull loss wrapped into a near tragedy. Thanks for your time. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123 Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully understand the pertinence of not imagining what coulda, woulda, shoulda happened. But the improvement of aviation safety relies on the investigation and analysis of all accidents and incidents. I realise Wikipedia is not an aircraft safety site, but I wanted to explain my perspective here. I'm not sure how this article could be successfully merged without losing a lot of relevant info. Let's see what other editors say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be a serious enough crash, with the aircraft being judged destroyed, and the page and event is well sourced. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant accident that resulted in a hull loss and injuries, not a simple runway overrun. SignorPignolini (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4 of the event criteria, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance. There is no continued nor in-depth coverage since news coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what the Civil Aviation Authority of Iran wrote in its final report. None of the sources are secondary, in nature, since none of them contain "analysis, evaluation or interpretation", with the sources being primary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:40, 19 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!} 18:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see WP:EVENTCRIT. Many more serious accidents that lacked enduring significance have had their articles deleted.I also haven't found any reliable lasting sources after the accident. Pygos (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - significant accident resulting in a hull loss of an airliner. Coverage is adequate taking into account where the accident occurred. Some countries are not as open as others. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 25 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 as no ATD has been identified Star Mississippi 22:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Kim (poker player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not relevant at the moment. Alon9393 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The winner of one of the most prestigious poker tournaments on the WPT tour. PsychoticIncall (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not provide enough independent, verifiable sources that demonstrate his long-term notability in the poker community --Moarnighar (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there an appropriate target article this one could be Redirected to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz I'm not seeing any possible ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:00, 18 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!} 18:35, 19 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 See below‎. No one arguing for retention, but it's not clear if you want the history preserved for an upmerge or redirect. I have not deleted in the event you do. But this consensus should be read as a soft delete of a flavor. Star Mississippi 22:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Line (New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Originally a redirect to BMT Broadway Line, this page got turned into an incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) listing two more New Yorker yellow lines that neither mention "yellow" in the article body nor are listed on the Yellow Line dab page (i.e. unlikely search target?). Since INCDAB pages aren't ideal, I see the following solutions for this particular page:

1. Upmerge all entries to Yellow Line and redirect to Yellow Line {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
2. Redirect back to the original BMT Broadway Line target, maybe add hatnotes
3. Delete to avoid confusion over dab-worthiness
4. Keep and accept this INCDAB

Whatever the result, I'd do the same for the 6 other NY color line INCDABs (not part of this AFD). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Page/Redirect were originally created by now-blocked editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive357#Dozens_upon_dozens_of_questionable_redirects_created_by_now-blocked_user. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Disambiguations, and New York. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as none of the entries on the page are actually "yellow lines"; the only commonality between them is that their emblem is colored yellow. (I would also !vote to delete the other incomplete disambiguations, but they weren't nominated here.) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 13 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!} 18:35, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esraa Owis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, many sources exist under her Arabic name "اسراء عويس". Multiple-time major international championship gold medallist so clearly meets WP:NATH. I added the first two to the article. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that it could be difficult to find sources in English language media. She may be notable as an Arab woman athlete winning medals in African championships and qualifying for the Summer Olympics. Nnev66 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has sources and the nomination does not indicate that any effort was put behind it. I.e. effort might have been put behind it, but it isn't shown. Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search in Arabic on Arabic news sites only returned routine, trivial event announcements (e.g. 0–3-sentence lightly-refactored boilerplate text announcing results 123456). Nothing approaching the in-depth secondary independent commentary required to be cited in all sportsperson articles. There is explicitly no carve-out for athletes that allows us to assume IRS SIGCOV exists when no such sources have been identified. The whole point of SPORTCRIT #5 is to ensure that athlete bios are not based on achievements or participation, as those criteria were deprecated by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, thanks for doing the research and finding those sources. I think that if we combine the paragraphs to establish notability (which is allowed per WP:NBASIC), we have a good case to be made here. The consensus you're referring to established by WP:NSPORTS2022 actually supports keeping this article, because it says to keep sports notability criteria as long as it's not participation based (i.e. simply attending a meet). But in Owis' case, she has won multiple major international medals which goes beyond simply participating. I think you are conflating achievements with participation. --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NSPORTS2022 established global consensus that, regardless of achievements and regardless of meeting a sport-specific guideline, all athletes must cite a source with IRS SIGCOV. Trivial and routine coverage does not establish notability, and that is the extent of what can be found on this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, thanks, the NSPORTS2022 closure actually does not say anything about IRS, and it in fact says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support. At the time that statement was made, this is what NSPORTS looked like: Special:Diff/1076787937.

  Regardless, if we combine the found articles from multiple independent organizations (not just the Koora sources) we can certainly say the coverage is significant in this case fulfilling WP:SPORTCRIT prong #5. Coverage about a hometown athlete qualifying for the Olympics is not routine -- there are strict qualifying standards and there is no guarantee or schedule of such an event occurring. --Habst (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sentence is in the context of deprecating NSPORT entirely, it is obviously not stating that NSPORT as it was is supported in toto. SPORTCRIT #5 requires a source providing significant coverage, it does not say "a combination of sources adding up to SIGCOV". And I've literally never seen anyone attempt the argument that this clause doesn't require the SIGCOV to be IRS.

  Coverage of people in non-routine events can absolutely still be routine. NOTNEWS does not limit this in any way. What has been found so far is not even personalized "hometown coverage", it's churnalized results announcements with no more than three boilerplate sentences apiece originating from the same news source. That is not GNG and is not even an indication of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, yes the sentence argues for the opposite of deprecating NSPORT -- it says to keep it in place, which it currently is. SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for, however it's important to note that has no bearing on whether or not WP:NATH is fulfilled (which it clearly is in this case via criterion 2, multiple gold medals at major competitions).

  Using a search for "اسراء عويس", I see four different news stories on just the first page of Google results (Paris Olympics - Israa Owais finishes her competitions in the qualifiers, Who is Israa Awis? | Profile, The Pharaohs in Paris.. Israa Owais bids farewell to the Olympic Games competitions, Israa Owais, the track and field athlete, officially qualifies for the Olympics). If you consider all of these "churnalism", then surely the series of at least three in-person interview clips conducted by ONTime Sports ([18] [19] [20]) would count as sufficiently journalistic sources? One of them looks to be a 26-minute news segment all about the subject.

  There are more on page 2: Egypt's champion Israa Owais, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon in athletics at the..., After 3 successful attempts, jumper Israa Awis fails in..., Israa Owais wins gold in long jump at Arab Games, “A golden heroine”... Israa Owais, the owner of historical achievements in, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon at Arab Games, Israa Awis, Israa Owais after saying goodbye to the Olympics: Enough negative talk, it's making me nervous, Israa Owais ranks 15th in the long jump competition, Sports News: Israa Owais bids farewell to the Games in.... These are all from different sources.

  There's also a 30-minute TV interview with her here from Al Ahly TV: Full interview | Israa Owais.. Al-Ahly player and Egypt national team star

  This is all just in the first 2 pages of results. I really don't think there's a question that the notability guideline is met, it's just that the sources are mostly in Arabic so we'll need to translate them for inclusion in the article. Honestly, I have yet to find a recent Olympian in athletics who doesn't meet the bar with some digging; the Olympics still have significant cultural purchase and athletics is the marquee sport so typically if someone qualifies, the coverage is there. --Habst (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for This is absolutely not true. There is no logical reading of at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage that supports your claim that multiple non-SIGCOV sources can constitute "a source providing SIGCOV". The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence.

  You are refbombing more routine trivial announcementsd. No number of functionally identical three-sentence results updates can amount to SIGCOV. 1: Israa Awis ended her competitions in the high jump qualifiers without qualifying for the final stage. Israa Owais is participating in the Olympics for the first time in her career. Israa Awis achieved a record of 6.20 metres after three successful attempts. This is on a site with no evidence of editorial control, attributed to someone with only two articles total, and identical to pieces on other sites that each also claim a byline. 2: This is a trash webscraper/UGS. 3: Israa Owais, the national team player and strongman, bid farewell to the long jump competitions, within the Olympic Games competitions hosted by Paris. Israa managed to jump to a height of 6.20 meters, coming in fifteenth place in the first group. Essentially the same announcement as 1. 4: This is the same 3-sentence article I linked earlier. 5: This is literally just a picture of her on a government website (not independent, not SIGCOV).

  In-person interviews are primary and non-independent. Per policy: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews,

  Al Ahly TV is her own sports organization, so that interview obviously fails as primary and non-independent in multiple ways.

  If this is the extent of the coverage you're finding on her, then we are severely lacking in anything approaching SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, thanks for your response.

  Re: paragraph 1, The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople -- Can you please link to the not-vote where this happened? From my read this isn't what happened in NSPORTS2022. Reading WP:NSPORTS2022, NBASIC is only mentioned once and it's not in the context of overriding it. They are separate policies and broad over-arching guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC still apply even where more subject-specific guidelines exist.

  Re: WP:REFBOMBing -- As an English speaker, I simply can't read all of the sources I am finding in Arabic, so I pasted the plausible ones here so that someone who does speak Arabic can look them over. Also, WP:REFBOMB only refers to putting unnecessary citations in an article. There's nothing wrong with linking many sources in an AfD discussion. In fact, I think they should all be addressed -- I see you left comments on five of the sources, but there are still 13 on just the first two pages of results that need to be looked at.

  Re: In-person interviews are primary and non-independent -- This simply isn't supported by Wikipedia policy. I recently had a discussion about an unrelated article with an admin just this week about this, and this is what they said this week at Special:Diff/1245933378:

  I think what will help with precedent is getting the interview issue settled. It has come up more and more often and I think it's unsettled. My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there.

  The quote that you're citing and have cited in past discussions is not directly from any Wikipedia policy, but is from a sub-bullet of a footnote of a section of WP:PRIMARY. The word "interview" is in fact never mentioned in the Wikipedia-voice text on that page other than to say that interviews depend on context. So, taking context into consideration, what can we say about the 26-minute ONTime Sports news segment (plus various clips) and the 30-minute Al Ahly TV news segment, both of which seem to be solely about Owis?

  Quoting the admin comment on this issue, Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? We would expect post-match interviews to be only five or six minutes and only focusing on the game -- instead, these interviews are much longer and were conducted in what seems to be an in-studio news segment setting. I want to emphasize clearly that we need the assistance of an Arabic speaker to say much more, but it seems like a lot exists here for Arabic speakers.

  I think the pieces for meeting SPORTCRIT and GNG have been presented. Can you explain why all 15 sources are "severely lacking"? --Habst (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You found one closer who holds the idiosyncratic opinion that interviews can somehow count towards GNG based on "the fact that they chose to interview them" rather than anything about the interview content being IRS SIGCOV. But you can't just claim that their close reflects any sort of consensus or even suggests broader disagreement while simultaneously ignoring the far more prevalent examples of closes supporting the view that only the secondary, independent material in an interview may count toward GNG. How could content that someone says about themselves ever be secondary and independent, anyway? And I know you're aware of these examples since I've linked them to you in the past, so why are you only now accepting admin AfD judgments as evidence of consensus? 1: The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one. 2: admin nom statement This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. 3: admin nom: There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. 4: The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. 5: The "keeps" are largely based on the slew of references provided early on in the discussion; however, nobody arguing to keep has presented evidence here as to how these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content; that has not been demonstrated here. 6: admin nom: referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all.

  The WP:OR treatment of interviews is still policy. Just because specific examples of primary sources are listed in the footnotes does not mean they "aren't policy".

  It is absolutely acceptable to characterize someone's behavior at AfD as "refbombing". It is breathtakingly entitled for you to dump a bunch of sources that you haven't even read and insist that other editors must prove each of them to be insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, thanks for finding these links.

  I was actually having an unrelated discussion with the administrator when they opined on interviews unprompted -- I wasn't looking to find a point of view one way or the other and I'm trying to enter discussions with an open mind. It seems intuitive to me that if a reputable news organization conducts a long-form interview, that speaks to the notability of the subject, and I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy contradicting that practice here.

  I am still curious about the justification for discounting interviews. The only mention you cited earlier, in WP:PRIMARY, doesn't mention interviews in the policy text, and the only mention in a footnote says, other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews as examples of what could be a primary source. Surely a lengthy news segment interview on a subject would fall under "depending on context" and could be used to establish notability? Also, the way the footnote is written, it makes it seem like only opinion-piece interviews are discussed and not news interviews.

  Looking at the links, 1) doesn't contain any news interviews, 2) only comments that the particular interviews used were primary and does not make a sweeping claim about all interviews, 3) doesn't seem to contain any news interviews but instead promotional interviews for his books (?), 4) makes no comment about interviews in general, 5) actually says interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content which I think should be met in this case, and 6) only speaks to specific "Q&A interviews" but not news interviews nor interviews in general.

  Re: Refbombing, I don't think it's productive to say that other editors are providing too many citations in AfD discussions where the point of the discussion is to evaluate sources. I plan on making a best effort at translation, but the reason why I linked and will continue to link sources in AfDs without being excessive is to see what the community thinks about them even if neither of us can read Arabic natively. I greatly respect your encyclopedic contributions and hope you can extend the same respect to me and can refrain from making personal comments.

  Acknowledging that "interviews may count towards GNG" if conditions are met, can we discuss the substance of the news interviews found so far, or if not them, then the other undiscussed sources linked? --Habst (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "wikipedia [guideline] contradicting this practice" is the one that requires the coverage to be substantial, independent, and secondary. An org's choice to interview someone is not any of that.

  Seriously, what can you possibly consider independent and secondary in any of those interviews? The subject speaking about herself is, by definition, non-independent and primary, thus it is absolutely ineligible for GNG consideration.

  You think bombarding editors with a bunch of links you haven't even read and demanding they prove that each one of them fails GNG is acceptable behavior?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, yes, I do think that interviews can be substantial and secondary depending on how they are conducted, particularly if they are conducted as part of news segments as appears to be the case here.

  Because neither of us knows Arabic, I'm not sure we can say for sure that about the content of the interviews. Maybe we should discuss the interview issues not pertaining to this specific case in a separate venue to not clutter this discussion? Either way, I think we should temper the language and behavioral accusations and focus on the article. With respect, --Habst (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Live interviews are 100% primary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I just don't think Wikipedia policy ever says this as a blanket statement, for example the comments by the interviewer about the subject would certainly not be primary. Most interviews then would not fall under that bucket. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No comment on this specific case, but in response to your claim: [That notability can be established through NBASIC for sportspeople] is absolutely not true ... The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence. – No, the community absolutely did not !vote to override the notability guideline for people, as said by the user who established SPORTCRIT in the first place: this provision was intended to aid us in expunging the plethora of sub-stubs sourced to databases and lacking any significant coverage that would allow us to write a well-rounded biography ... SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for everyone else's clarity, right after your quoted sentences Cbl62 noted that he has only seen one instance in two years where NBASIC was sufficient in the absence of a SPORTCRIT #5 source. That is hardly an endorsement of using scattered three-sentence announcements for NBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not necessarily saying that this article passes NBASIC. I'm saying that the statement of the community !vot[ing] to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople is incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources added by Habst appear to be good enough (via reading a rough translation) for meeting the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Let'srun, the first link has three brief sentences announcing her event results. That is routine news coverage on its own, but it's also clearly lacking in any secondary analysis as the specifics are just substituted into the boilerplate announcements put out by Kooora and Kas News for every athlete at every competition. You can look at the links I provided to see the identical formatting, and also compare to the contemporaneous announcements put out for others in her cohort. They are pure fluff.

  Kooora:
  Israa Owais, the Egyptian track and field player, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria. Israa Owais succeeded in winning the gold medal after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held on Tuesday evening in the Algerian city of Oran.

  Kooora:
  Mostafa Amr, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the shot put competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria from July 5 to 15. Amr succeeded in winning the gold medal at the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 20.52 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.

  Run-of-the-mill sports announcements are not enough to demonstrate notability, and athletes are required to have a source of IRS SIGCOV cited in the article. A 3-sentence blurb that contains nothing beyond the results of an event is certainly not enough to meet SPORTSCRIT. The second piece is by the same news agency as the first (the Kooora piece is functionally identical to a Kas News piece) and so these definitely don't even constitute "multiple" sources of coverage.

  Kas News:
  Israa Owais, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games currently being held in Algeria. Israa Awis succeeded in winning the gold medal in the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.

  Per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage

  Per WP:N: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Have none of the keep !voters actually read any of the proposed sources...? JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 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!} 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as easily meets WP:BASIC and WP:NATH and WP:HEY. Winner of multiple medals at major international competitions, including 2 gold medals (both long jump and triple jump) at the 2023 Arab Games; silver medal at the 2022 Mediterranean Games; bronze medal at the 2022 African Championships in Athletics. Many pieces of secondary coverage focused on Esraa Owis and her accomplishments identified by Habst above, a few of which have been added to the article, which has been expanded. For English speakers, have also added the 2022 article in The National, which discusses how she overcame an ankle injury that nearly ruined her career to become the first woman representing Egypt to win a silver medal in the long jump in the Mediterranean Games. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it would be a bit ridiculous if an athlete winning gold medals at a major event wasn't notable. For me, the interview thing has always been a slightly silly argument. If a major news publication has interviewed a subject, that indicates they think the subject is notable and worth interviewing. Unless there is evidence that it is just PR and fill, there has been an editorial decision to interview this person rather than all the other possible people they could feature. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 27 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!} 05:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Natarajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promo article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are mostly interviews and profiles. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is so many citations on his work in this article and he is well known in the world of Supply Chain. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=M1dROmoAAAAJ&hl=en 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the concerns regarding the notability and reliability of the references in this article.

Notability and Achievements:

Shekar Natarajan is a recognized expert in the field of supply chain management. His contributions to the industry have been significant, as evidenced by his receipt of the Medallion Award from the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE) in 2010, which is awarded for notable contributions to the field. It was awarded to only 10 people over the last decade. This award recognizes individuals that have made a notable impact on the industrial engineering profession. The full list of awardees, including Mr. Natarajan, can be viewed here - https://www.iise.org/awards.aspx?id=10802.

Reliable Sources:

In addition to the IISE recognition, Mr. Natarajan has been acknowledged by various reputable industry sources. For example, Material Handling and Logistics News has recognized him as an expert in supply chain logistics. More details about his work and expertise can be found in their coverage here - https://www.mhlnews.com/shekar-natarajan-expert.

Given these points, I believe Mr. Natarajan's notability is well-established within his field, supported by reliable third-party sources.

Thank you for considering these points. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Natarajan has received several prestigious awards and recognitions throughout his career, acknowledging his significant contributions to the supply chain and logistics industry.* Medallion Award (2010): Awarded by the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), recognizing his contributions to the field of industrial engineering and systems.

• DC Velocity Rainmaker (Year): Named as one of the "Rainmakers" by DC Velocity magazine, which highlights professionals who have made substantial impacts in the logistics and supply chain field. Source.
• Consumer Goods Visionary (2010): Recognized as a visionary by Consumer Goods magazine for his forward-thinking strategies in the consumer goods industry. Source.Given the multiple awards and recognitions that Shekar Natarajan has received, it is clear that he has made a noteworthy impact in his industry. Deleting this article would mean removing valuable information about a recognized leader in supply chain management, whose work continues to influence the field. This article serves as a credible and informative resource for those interested in learning about influential figures in the industry.