Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 3

< September 02 September 04 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. After three weeks of debating, the Delete views outnumber the Keeps, but both sides carry about the same P&G weight, and there's no consensus either way. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Internet Services

[edit]
Cyber Internet Services (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 don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article also seems pretty promotional and mostly relies on sources tied to the organization or its subsidiaries, like stormfiber.com, which is a brand of this company. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following the comment above, a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Dawn is reliable per WP:NPPSG and there are quite a few Dawn articles that offer significant coverage of this company. ProPakistani.pk is listed as "no consensus" because there are concerns about undisclosed sponsored posts, so I wouldn't trust them for notability. Regardless, there is some coverage in other sources (ex: [1][2][3][4]) so I'm leaning towards a keep. C F A 💬 23:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. In light of the reliability of Dawn and the sigcov in it, plus the sources identified by CFA, I'll !vote keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA and Dclemens1971: Are the keep votes based on Dawn's non-byline coverage currently cited in the article, which is itself derived from press releases? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have this press release for us to compare? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dclemens1971, Based on your comment, it seems like you're relying heavily on Dawn's coverage to justify keeping this article. There are three Dawn articles cited, but the coverage is questionable. For example, this article is clearly marked as "PR" under the image caption, indicating it's likely based on a press release. This second news story only briefly mentions the subject [Cyber Internet Services] in the context of an incident at StormFiber, a subsidiary of the subject making it routine coverage. And the third article offers just a trivial mention of the subject. None of these provide in-depth coverage of Cyber Internet Services itself. Similarly, the coverage provided by @CFA: is also questionable. Why? Because the term “PR” is clearly mentioned under the image captions, suggesting it's likely based on press releases. The coverage in Business Recorder is confirmed to be press release-based as well, as indicated by the byline. Now the question is, since when did we start keeping articles based on press release coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exclusively basing my !vote on Dawn coverage but RS/N seems to support @CFA's view and CFA brought other sources that support notability under WP:NCORP. I note you have not supplied any press release that you assert (without evidence thus far) the Dawn articles are based on. Sourcing an image to a press release is extremely common even with reliable sources, which need to attribute their images and have no reason not to use images provided by companies. That is no indication that the article itself is based on a press release. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dclemens1971, Please check the tone of these articles - they’re clearly PROMO. We don’t always need evidence to show that a piece is based on a press release. I don’t have to add anything more on this. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This referenced Dawn article seems to be based on, and quoting directly, this press release. I haven't checked the others, yet, but I suspect the same applies. The Dawn article doesn't link to the press release (bad form!) but other coverage does (see here for example, with them even directly stating as such when linking to it: According to the press release issued by PEACE). So it seems Saqib is correct in his assessment. GhostOfNoMeme 23:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same indeed seems to apply for this Tribune article. It's again a promotional piece based on the same press release straight from the involved company. GhostOfNoMeme 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CFA and Dclemens1971 analysis. StormFiber is not a company or subsidiary - it is doing business as StormFiber for public internet connections. StormFiber coverage ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) does count towards Cyber Internet (additional coverage: [10], [11]). At worst, redirect to Lakson Group per WP:ATD. 194.213.16.36 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the reliability of the sources has been questioned. Also, the option of a Redirect has also been proposed. Participants coming into the discussion now, please check the sources brought up in this discussion, not just the ones appearing in the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dawn.com/news/1476691 Yes While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release ~ It’s a no-byline piece and seems based on a press release. If one check the tone because it reads just like one No It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1519863 Yes While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release ~ It’s a no-byline piece, based on company's own press statement No It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727236 Yes While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author ? It’s a no-byline piece No It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1953039/pakistans-internet-infrastructure-get-96-tbs-boost-new-cable-system Yes The ET is a RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release ~ It’s a no-byline piece and seems based on a press release. If one check the tone because it reads just like one No It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself ✘ No
https://www.brecorder.com/news/40211289 ~ While Business Recorder is an independent news source but this is clearly marked as press release ~ Since this is based on a press release, I'm unsure ~ I don't see in-depth details about the company itself ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
It looks like this source table was put together by User:Saqib. Thank you for assembling it but please sign all comments and contributions to the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assessments in this source table for reasons already noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safavid Capture of Mesopotamia (1623-1624)

[edit]
Safavid Capture of Mesopotamia (1623-1624) (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 has no useful encyclopedic content about its subject, the Safavid capture of Mesopotamia. There is no lede section, and two of the three paragraphs are not about the campaign. The first paragraph is background, and the second paragraph is about the victorious commander. The infobox says nothing, because the strength and the losses are unknown. The third paragraph is partly about a military victory without describing the victory.

The sentence

This text aims to cover key aspects of his reign: his rise to power, consolidation, military successes, and the establishment of Isfahan

is not only not encyclopedic, but reads as if it was copied from a book. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I actually wrote the article by myself will you now remove the AFD message? Stickyrainbow (talk) 04:31, 7 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. Sourcing has been found to be insufficient Star Mississippi 00:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuy

[edit]
Ubuy (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 company article. Indian sources are not useful per WP:RSNOI. Veldsenk (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Can only find routine coverage unhelpful for notability per WP:ORGTRIV and obviously sponsored posts. C F A 💬 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there seems to be no reliable citation throughout the page and the listing seems to have malicious and purely profit-seeking intentions behind it. Wouldn't recommend it to be kept listed either. PerpRead1 (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Kuwait. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the article does not currently carry any meaningful or important content to be covered on Wikipedia as of yet. Once the are notable or important media coverage from independent and reliable sources, not paid promotional articles, the article can be requested for retrieve from the deleted articles by anyone with sufficient reason, notability and reliable sources coverage, if no one request for the article to be retrieved, it means the is no value for the article to be covered on Wikipedia.
    Vote: Delete Dwaynemoony (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not the one who created this article, but I was one of the editors who completely rewrote the article and included a string of international media sources (which are used in extremely large numbers in other articles). After much discussion and recommendations I kept only the notable sources which are certainly sufficient to keep the article. Also, being a globally known platform, I would be of the opinion that it can be present on wikipedia. Being a related platform to Temu which is even newer in the market it is already present in wikipedia.
    I want to mention that I have nothing to do with this topic!

P.S In the meantime I will analyze to identify new sources in addition to the existing ones in the article.--DanikS88 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if you have close connection to the subject, which is not allowed or have you been paid to cover the subject? is not only about the source is also about you close to the subject, and also about the importance to be covered on Wikipedia, should there be any important new information with credibility, the deletion will be extended for further discussion until then, it should be removed, it does not have any importance to be covered on Wikipedia as of yet. It should be part of the company's story on their own website. Dwaynemoony (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no close connection with this topic and I don't edit wikipedia for pay. I do it for pleasure and in the interest of learning something and providing readers with credible information. It's easy to blame someone, but harder to make wikipedia better. DanikS88 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles listed are clearly promotional articles, paid to have been put up, and therefore, providing unjustified defenses while stating I do it for pleasure seems a bit misleading here. There are zero independent, unpaid articles about the company and the page seems to have been set up entirely for promotional purposes instead of adding any value to Wikipedia readers. PerpRead1 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PerpRead1, you have some strong opinions for an account with a total of 2 edits. And you even knew to indent your remarks. Please log into your regular account and stop casting aspersions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 10 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! 23:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete at least per WP:NEWSORGINDIA and lack of notability. --美しい歌 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a top source from Kuwait to the article, so I reviewed the sources available in the article which are enough to establish the notability of the article, as I said these sources are used in hundreds of wikipedia articles. I don't want to comment on the editors who vote deletion because it's not my right (but some of them seem to be from a WP:SOCK), this will be reviewed by an administrator. I just ask that the editor who will be in charge of deleting the article to review the past version of the article and the current version to make a comparison, because the subject is notable being internationally known, having some revenue which is enough to prove notability.--DanikS88 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you added is a routine, no-byline promo piece about an app update. If you suspect sockpuppetry, take it to SPI. Don't cast aspersions with no evidence. Please strike but some of them seem to be from a WP:SOCK. C F A 💬 20:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DanikS88, the discussion closer assesses this deletion discussion and the arguments participants are making, they aren't analyzing the article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz, sorry but I didn't understand your message, but as you can see my comment about there being a connection between editors who keep trying to attack me, even the newly created PerpRead1 editor who comes up with an attack message is clearly a company that votes en masse to delete.... DanikS88 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not do yourself any favours, by getting it declined at AFC, then moving it to Article Space yourself, saying it was on hold for 3 months. (1. Creation of article, 2. AFC Declined 9 days later)

Just an observation. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 08:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was not in compliance with wikipedia policies to move to the main space, but I have argued this.
And the fact that the article was denied I discussed at the time with the respective editor, where I removed all promotional information and sources. Because the initial draft that I had no connection to was clearly working with a promotional purpose. Thanks! DanikS88 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional information" is not why the article should be deleted. The company simply isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. C F A 💬 13:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources in different language versions are notable and reliable enough to comply with WP:NCORP. However, the page could be completed with more information. It also respects WP:GNG.--Ciudatul (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with Keep: Well according to WP:NCORP for companies, organisations, corporates, products and services, they need to meet the following guidelines in order the be notable.
    1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
    2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
    3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
    4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
    In this case, this company or website does not meet the basic required standard to be considered notable. In other words as I have noted before, this company is not yet important to be covered on Wikipedia. If the company was ready, I would be voting for it to be kept. I have created lot of articles approved and disaproved which taught me the importance of the subject we are covering and notability. In this case, this company does not meet the basic requirements. Source is not reliable, or is from promotional articles, there is no even a single reliable source relating to the company's culture, or user impact. According to the requirements of Wikipedia, is not yet a subject that should be covered on Wikipeia, The is no importance of this website on Wikipedia, even its Operation section is written like a promo indicating is written by someome close to the source. Being named one of 50 companies according to Deloitte, does not mean is satisfy notability that is required by Wikipedia, every corporate have list of their own top something, that does not mean the company is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia unless if Wikipedia state so, you can provide that. Dwaynemoony (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:56, 9 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. After two weeks, there doesn't seem to be any agreement whether to keep, delete or redirect the article, with proponents on both sides arguing against each other. A discussion on whether or not to merge and / or redirect can take place after this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

177 Franklin Street

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

Appears to be short of WP:GNG and it doesn't qualify for WP:NBUILD, so the previous deletion opposition which was based upon "This is a contributing building to the Tribeca West Historic District and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability. " is not national level recognition to presume notability under WP:NGEO Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per Greywalls. Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Tribeca West Historic District should have its own article and if one is created then this can be merged with that. But until such an article exists, deleting information on an historic building which has its own entry in the designation report serves no useful purpose to anyone with any interest in historic architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp:, that's a NYC.gov, a local government. What part of this is national designation level as said in WP:NBUILD? Graywalls (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware. But that's not what I said. Just because it's not nationally designated doesn't mean it can't be notable. Plenty of New York City Landmarks do have their own articles. I see no value in deleting information on an historic building "just because"! It might certainly be better served in a wider article, but unfortunately there isn't yet one. But in any case, it does appear to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tribeca West Historic District Delete - this is a run-of-the-mill older building in NYC, like thousands of others in the city that have features like: Some surviving historic features include a pressed metal cornice, prominent brick-and-stone lintels, a brick corbel table, wood sash windows, and cast-iron piers, so I'm failing to understand what makes this one notable. The sourcing is quite weak, consisting of blogs like Curbed and trade journal-like websites like Commercial Observer or GlobeSt. Here's what GlobeSt's website says about their mission to publish native advertising: Native Advertising: Connect your content with our website audience in the context of the editorial user experiences; the result is higher visibility and engagement for your thought leadership content.[13]. In other words, "Pay to Play." I understand the building lies within the boundaries of the "Historical District" however, if the building were notably historic we would see coverage in books on architectural history, or critical/analytical analysis in architectural magazines or academic journals. An online BEFORE search finds real estate listings, more blogs but not in-depth coverage outside of the incident where the developer/owner wanted to mount a huge crucifix to the exterior. I agree that an article on the Tribeca Historic District would be the perfect place to redirect this, but one has not been created, yet. Fails GNG and NBUILD. Many houses on the very block I live on fall within our local "historical district", does that mean they are wiki-notable? No, it just means they are old and haven't been gut renovated.Netherzone (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This building is a contributing property to a city historic district (not even an individual landmark), so it doesn't automatically meet NBUILD, but I'm leaning toward it meeting GNG. The LPC source does have a few details about the building's early history and facade, but since 177 Franklin was only designated along with 1,000 other buildings in Tribeca West, the info in the report is more limited. I did find a handful of sources about the Shinola store, like this New York Times Magazine source and this source from Hodinkee. I also found a source from the Wall Street Journal which describes how the building was supposed to become luxury apartments before becoming a store. This source from the Real Deal describes a few of the previous plans for the building. I haven't looked into pre-2000s sources, but like Netherzone, I was unable to find coverage of the building in architectural magazines.
    As for the other sources currently in the article, Walter Grutchfield is self-published, and Wikimapia isn't reliable. GlobeSt.com and Commercial Observer are both reputable trade journals with editorial oversight, but the sources from these websites don't comprise significant coverage. (As an example, this GlobeSt article about the building's sale, which ostensibly is three paragraphs long, only describes the number of stories and the building's cost—a total of two sentences). Though Curbed is now owned by New York Media, LLC, the two Curbed sources in the article were published when Curbed was still an independent blog, so I hesitate to call this reliable. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also fine with merging/redirecting this to Tribeca West Historic District. The sources I provided show that the building only barely meets GNG, so the topic could still be mentioned in the Tribeca West article as part of a section about specific buildings in the district. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how any reader could possibly benefit by having less factual information rather than more about a building that has been noted as contributing to the designation of a historic district. Station1 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hi, thanks for sharing your opinion, but it would be useful if you would substantiate policy based argument that supports your position Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I think far more important is the spirit of Wikipedia, "to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge." Contrary to your bald assertions, without further explanation, that the article does not meet the guidelines (not policy) at WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD, the topic does have reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, primarily and especially the LPC report. Furthermore, WP:NBUILD says buildings "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." This building has historic and architectural importance documented by the LPC, a reliable third-party source. And no one has yet researched local papers for information about its social importance regarding the church controversy, where freedom of religion and zoning rules clashed, nor about its use as a public avant-garde concert venue in the '80s. And under WP:NGEO "national level recognition" only presumes notability, it does not mean other historic structures cannot be notable; besides which NYC is larger than about half the nations of the world. Granted, this is far from the world's most important building, but we have literally thousands of articles about similarly or less notable buildings on Wikipedia, and consensus is that they stay. Now that I've attempted to answer your question, perhaps you can explain how Wikipedia readers will benefit by depriving them of the facts contained in this article. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, @Station1, as mentioned in my comment above I did indeed do a BEFORE search, which I consider to be best practices in AfDs. Newspapers.com had several hits, but these were simple mentions for things like, "so and so lived at 177 Franklin Street, who died on Friday" lot's of these types of mentions. I also found mentions of the address in listings for apartments that were for rent. But found nothing about the building itself or its architectural, historical importance. Additionally I did a Google search and only came up with blogs, real estate listings, primary sources, and a few pieces about the big crucifix event. I also did a search of the LPC report, and found nothing in it about this specific building at 177 Franklin. Do you have a page number in the report that you could direct us to? Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on pages 295-6. Station1 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I found it with your help. What I found there is a short paragraph mainly describing the physical characteristics, but not any distinguishing characteristics that would indicate how this specific building is exceptional and set apart from the other many thousands of buildings that fall within drawn historical boundaries in NYC. This indicates run of the mill, WP:MILL at least to my way of thought. What would you consider to be the two other best sources? Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic is either notable or it's not. Barely notable is still notable. A real-world reliable independent source with competence in the subject has taken note of this building and provided facts about it, facts that we can pass on to readers, however few, who might be interested in those facts, and that's enough for me. I still haven't heard any argument explaining why those readers are better off not knowing facts about this building. Station1 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it isn't. There's a range of notability and if it doesn't meet GNG or the relevant SNG have no place on Wikipedia. A tract home chosen for a home makeover show is more notable than the rest of the homes in the subdivision but it's going to take a very significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources with significant level of details by independent reliable sources devoted to that house to be considered for an article. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG does not say very, or in-depth, or significant level [of details]. It does say "There is no fixed number of sources required..." and that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your criteria seem to be higher than what GNG suggests. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sort of does in WP:SIGCOV. "multiple sources are generally expected". and it defines what significant coverage means on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or draftify. Given the sources presented, the article does not appear to meat the GNG or other notability guidelines. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory of historic buildings, I can't in good faith argue to keep in this case, but Station1 and Necrothesp make a good point that deleting verifiable, factual information is in tension with the overall goal of Wikipedia. Draftification, especially if someone is interested in putting together a brief Tribeca West Historic District article would be a reasonable ATD, but if no one is ready to do the work, deletion may be necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404, thanks for explaining your reasoning. As a heads-up, someone else has now created the Tribeca West Historic District article. (Also pinging @Necrothesp who mentioned the Tribeca West red link.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 3 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 councils (Boy Scouts of America). There isn't a strong consensus for this closure but I don't think an additional relisting would help. Closing as a Redirect as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Iowa Council

[edit]
Northeast Iowa Council (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)

WP:BRANCH. The branch lacks enough independent notability to be able to pass WP:NCORP and I suggest DELETING or REDIRECTING, but I am not sure of target. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 3 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 United Premier Soccer League. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Athletic FC

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

Non-notable local club team in the United States, in a feeder league that includes 400 teams. Would only be notable if there were significant recognition by the league for excellence. Sadads (talk) 23:08, 3 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 Great American Railroad Journeys. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Alaskan Railroad Journeys

[edit]
Great Alaskan Railroad Journeys (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 source could be found to qualify the article for notability. Since the documentary was produced by the BBC, the BBC website in article cannot be considered a suitable source. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider redirecting to Great American Railroad Journeys as a more reasonable proposal, as GAlRJ is now considered as a series of GAmRJ. Sanmosa Outdia 10:48, 5 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, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanhai Chao

[edit]
Nanhai Chao (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)

Unable to find sources that would make the article meet notability.日期20220626 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Enderal. After several weeks' discussion, I see this as the most favourable option agreed on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureAI

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

Appears to fail notability, a timeline of released works. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are one of the most well-known game modding groups.
The main issue I see is that much of what I added to the history section uses SureAI's self-published timeline as the main reference, but the page was established as notable before I even did this. I think better sources may be needed, but that doesn't qualify this for deletion. TheSmumbo (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain my reasoning, I did not nominate because of the use of self-published sources. I think the article does not go beyond a database entry and I could not find sources to change that. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP. The Eurogamer article is the only one that is significant coverage, not enough to meet notability. The rest are news stories that focus on the games they were developing, not the company. They don't "address the subject of the article directly and in depth". See also WP:CORPDEPTH: There should be "coverage that provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". All of these news articles are just that "routine announcements", not significant coverage of the company. --Mika1h (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article has at least 1-2 paragraphs of coverage of the company. Some have more. Sure, I wouldn't say it's an "obvious keep", but I do think the coverage adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CORPDEPTH: "collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant". --Mika1h (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several paragraphs about the company is nowhere near "trivial". Some of the articles aren't entirely about the company itself, and instead focus on the company's games, but they still offer some significant coverage that counts towards NCORP. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. C F A 💬 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A modding team, that won multiple awards, including The Game Awards for best fan creation (2016), multiple mods of year awards from several publications, now a full game studio with several releases.
    That's like saying Christopher Nolan isn't notable, only his movies are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not, organizations have higher notability requirements than people. Coverage of companies products doesn't contribute to the notability of the company. --Mika1h (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if Mr. Nolan has no sourcing about him, we can't create an article for him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on how much weight we give the Eurogamer feature (which also intends to highlight modding in general). In my view, because the majority of information here can only be gleaned from primary source, a good legacy section on Enderal would make more sense. IgelRM (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good compromise. TheSmumbo (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Enderal, their most notable project. This is why I don't like the extreme narrowing of CORP that has taken place over the last several years. Yes keeping commercial spam off of Wikipedia is important, but removing coverage of organizations(including one that in this case was originally not for profit) that produce notable products doesn't help our readers if the pages aren't poorly written promos, as this one is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:02, 3 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! 22:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Coverage I find is all about Skyrim mods, I suppose we could have a brief mention there, but there isn't much of anything about this company themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about SureAI themselves. Likewise, [23][24] is a two part interview of SureAI's project lead. Another on RPGWatch [25] and GamerGlobal.de [26]. This is about the future (in 2021) projects of SureAI (i.e. Dreadful River). There's plenty more, i.e. the awards they won etc.... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviewing several of the above linked articles I agree there is sufficient notability and coverage that the subject is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, including the Eurogamer article and others. For clarity - WP:ORGCRIT was explicitly created to require stronger criteria are to "prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals", and I see no evidence of such gaming here. (For the record - I am discounting the Articy articles as these do not appear intellectually independent of the subject). ResonantDistortion 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd go out on a limb and say that they are probably the most famous mod maker of all time. Enderal alone is arguably the best single player mod of all time (and also one of my favourite RPGs of all time), and all 3 of their "mods" are really just fan made games just using the engines of actual for profit software. we have i believe standalone articles for much smaller and less well known video game companies, so deleting this article solely because their games were free and technically considered "mods" by some would be a mistake, in my opinion. Best regards, Kasperquickly (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and this fails WP:NCORP. Arguing that other companies exist with fewer references is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Note that this is not debating that their games are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is literally the rule that everyone ignores on wikipedia, because if they didn't, the whole ruleset would fall apart. Reminder, this encyclopedia has a rule specifically mentioning that stuff known for only one event is not notable, yet it has hundreds of individual articles about stuff only known for the Kennedy's murder, including a standalone article about the rifle he's been shot with. Come on. Kasperquickly (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Enderal as per the suggestion above by Eluchil404 seems like the best WP:ATD option considering that the topic company fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. *None* of the sourcing meets the criteria, several Keep !voters have provided sourcing to suggest the company meets the criteria but those sources are either relatively high-level descriptions of the company (therefore failing WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth content about the *company*) or rely on information provided by the company/team (e.g. by way of interviews, thereby failing WP:ORGIND as the *content* is not independent). HighKing++ 12:50, 9 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1922 Howard Bison football team

[edit]
1922 Howard Bison football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG nor does it meet SNG. Per WP:CFBSEASON "Single seasons can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage". The only source seems to be from the school itself. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator While I couldn't originally find non routine coverage or many sources (and I did look) several people have worked hard to find those sources where I couldn't. I am new to this and will make sure to include more details about my serach before nominating to ensure there isn't confusion around wether or not I looked. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udayan Secondary School, Barisal

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

One of about 35 secondary schools in the city. Translated from the Bengali Wikipedia. All the content comes from the school's website. The other source cited, barisallive24.com (now dead), is obscure and of unknown reliability but probably partly supported the last sentence of the article. That sentence has lost something in translation. In its history the school has received two awards for excellence. Not, judging by the barisallive24.com title, for being the top school in the country, but for their results within Barisal District.

Searches in English and Bengali found a few primary source breaking news stories, but no significant coverage of the school itself.[27][28][29] Nothing more has been written about the 2013 allegation or the 2017 and 2020 complaints about fees. Without multiple secondary sources containing significant coverage, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Open to redirection to List of educational institutions in Barisal District, where the school is listed. Worldbruce (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 3 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Boys Senior High School, (MARISCO)

[edit]
St. Mary's Boys Senior High School, (MARISCO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not fit GNG or SNG. Only appears to have one source and the source does not go into depth. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:16, 3 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 Six Feet Under (band). Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gall

[edit]
Greg Gall (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)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as an individual. As always, members of bands are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources that focuses specifically on them (as opposed to just being glancingly namechecked in coverage of the band) -- but the sole footnote here is the band's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 3 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! 23:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammad Abbasbayli

[edit]
Mammad Abbasbayli (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 notabilty. Doesn't have significiant coverage in reliable independent sources. He is head of The State Service for Antimonopoly and Consumer Market Control under the Ministry of Economy, which is not a position that can make someone notable. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:14, 3 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. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7075

[edit]
NGC 7075 (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 galaxy is not notable, all of the references are to catalog entries. Parejkoj (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some commentary beyond catalogue entries about this galaxy here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/4/5719/5923577?login=false , https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/489/3/3739/5554765?login=false and https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/484/3/4239/5299582?login=false. The radio source accociated with the galaxy is descripted in a more than a passing reference in a table here https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/282/1/40/1036079?login=false. It is a keep for me. --C messier (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those papers are about the galaxy itself, they just have some paragraphs discussing it. That's pretty weak notability at best. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still these are multiple sources that provide commentary that is more than a trivial mention. The ALMA series is quite low volume, only discussing a dozen objects at most, including this particular galaxy. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material WP:SIGCOV. C messier (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:NASTRO we presume notability because it was discovered before 1850 but a careful investigation may show that it is not notable. Even if we discover sufficient references to meet our notability critera we may go on to decide there should not be an article on this galaxy. I hope that is completely clear! Thincat (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:13, 3 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. Concerns about sourcing for individual items can continue on the talk page. asilvering (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of language proficiency tests

[edit]
List of language proficiency tests (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)

Unencyclopedic list of tests without reliable secondary sources. ... discospinster talk 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Mehta

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Arun Kumar Mehta (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 prophesied, this page is immediately back after soft deletion. This biography of an Indian civil servant fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the individual in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that refer to him in the context of his former role while covering other subjects. (For example, the awards he is purported to have received were granted to the Jammu and Kashmir government and accepted by Mehta on its behalf.) There is no other WP:SIGCOV in sources considered reliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there are two questions here:Notability and Coverage.
  • I don't WP:NPOL is the standard here. He is a civil servant, neither a person who was voted into the position not a Judge. However, his position in the Order of precedence in India is above certain individuals that would qualify. I think in terms of notability, the closest equivalent would be people who are Secretary of State for a given US State, such as those in Category:Secretaries of state of Texas where Wikipedia has quite a few. (Yes, I know the Americans are (US State) Cabinet positions, but this seems to be close to the same and equally doesn't seem covered by WP:NPOL.
  • Coverage There isn't any doubt that he holds the position, the question is whether the first two references which show that he *had* the position are enough to show general notability. So at this point, and I'll hopefully come back after others have commented, I'm a Week Keep.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:11, 3 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. Thanks to User:MrSchimpf's comment that made the closure simple. The nominator seems to know the names of Wikipedia editors despite having made only 3 edits which makes me pretty certain they are a returning blocked editor. But opinion is to Keep this article regardless of the strange deletion nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Pakistan

[edit]
Miss Universe Pakistan (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 passing the GNG notability: Someone is advertising about Noor Xarmina and probably Captain Assassin and Alizee Ali Khan who are both same https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Draft:Noor_Xarmina redirect to https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Miss_Pakistan_Universal WKS87 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You should have this article not deleted because it is a article that connections to the Miss Universe Organization Apipattana (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:11, 3 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! 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic Weekend results

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

While the Magic Weekend is special, the results aren't. There is no statistical importance, no link between the results, no extra trophy, ... Basically WP:NOTSTATS, no indication why the results from this weekend are more noteworthy Fram (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:10, 3 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. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kiser (musician)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joe Kiser (musician) (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)

WP:BLP of a musician, with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This is a followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exitsect: the attempted notability claim here is NMUSIC #6, "musician who has been in two independently notable bands", except Exitsect is one of the two bands despite there being no discernible evidence that they ever did anything more than briefly exist -- but this article otherwise says nothing else about him, literally going "he is a musician who has been in bands, the end", and the only footnote here is the same unreliable source that's the only footnote in Exitsect's article too. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 3 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! 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exitsect

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was created in 2016 based entirely on a single unreliable source dated 2008, but has never had even one new word added to it since then about them doing anything (touring? recording?) — and one of the four stated members, whose standalone article incidentally fails to mention this band at all, died in 2015 (i.e. nine years ago, and one full year before this article even existed), yet this article still uses the present tense to describe his membership even though he was already dead, and thus clearly not still in the band even if they did still exist, in 2016.
The intended notability claim was clearly NMUSIC #6, "multiple independently notable members", but it's falling into the circular notability-loop trap that NMUSIC explicitly says to watch out for: the only member who has a strong claim to standalone notability as an individual is the dead guy, whose notability hinges on two other bands without mentioning this band at all, two of the other three members are clearly trying to wriggle through the "notable because they've been in this band that's notable because they were in it" loophole, and the third other member is staking his attempted standalone notability on one other band while again failing to mention this one at all, meaning three of the four members are also AFD candidates without clear or properly sourced claims to standalone notability.
So clearly this is a band that briefly existed in 2008, but there's no properly sourced evidence that they ever actually did anything besides briefly exist, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have reliably sourced evidence of actually doing something. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 3 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) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes

[edit]
Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes (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)

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Lino needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I could find nothing other than database sources like Soccerway and NFT, even when searching in conjunction with his country and Dili Leste. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 3 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. asilvering (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edla Spencer-Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

[edit]
Edla Spencer-Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not shown to demostrate notability other than being married (now seperated) to someone who is notable (Jamie Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough) DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Rabbit Studios

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

Appears to fail company notability. Limited Run Games was a division of this according to grepbeat.com, perhaps a redirect? IgelRM (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty rabbit and limited run were originally tied together as companies since limited run began as a division of mighty rabbit but they have more recently have separated into their own separately owned entities after limited run was purchased. where limited run is owned by embracer group, mighty rabbit remains independent. Due to this split, maintaining separate pages would likely be more accurate to their current standing 2603:6081:2100:229:C1A6:D1D4:D485:D2FD (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But Limited Run Games has press coverage for notability, which Mighty Rabbit Studios unfortunately does not have sufficiently. IgelRM (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 3 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) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Brubaker

[edit]
Dani Brubaker (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)

Notablity not established; article appears to be wp:promo. Her name does appear in published sources but only in captions for her photography. The one piece of writing I found about her was about winning an honorable mention on pr.com, which is just a press release, not a published article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I saw this a few days ago while patrolling the NPP feed, and questioned the notability. She is a working commercial photographer who makes some very nice photographs, however she not a notable photographer per WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor the general notability guideline. She lived in two houses that have been written about, and she took some controversial photographs of a young girl. The sourcing consists of her own website, some blogs or blog-like coverage mostly about the young girl, or about her two houses. Other sources include a self-published Lulu "book", and photo caption mentions. This is not the type of in-depth significant coverage needed for an encyclopedia article; she does not have the type of track record that we normally see for a notable photographer. The article seems to be WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.danibrubaker.com/biography No No No photographer's own website ✘ No
https://www.remodelista.com/posts/updated-historic-casita-galisteo-new-mexico-for-sale/ No No No article about the purcase and renovation of real estate on a real estate site. ✘ No
https://thejasminebrand.com/2011/08/07/is-a-10-year-old-model-wearing-no-shirt-or-heels-too-sexy/ No No No article about Thylane Blondeau ✘ No
https://www.who.com.au/entertainment/most-beautiful-girl-in-the-world-who-is-thylane-blondeau/ ? ? No article about Thylane Blondeau ✘ No
https://www.jezebel.com/fashion-industry-salivates-over-creepy-photos-of-10-yea-5827092 Yes Yes No article about Thylane Blondeau ✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thylane-loubry-blondeau-mother_n_919501 Yes Yes No article about Thylane Blondeau's mother ✘ No
https://anneofcarversville.com/body-politics/2011/8/3/thylane-lena-rose-blondeau-a-supermodel-in-the-making.html No No No article about Thylane Blondeau ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=M1RwDwAAQBAJ ? ? No Google books listing for Britney Spears Is Coming-back! with no mention of Brubaker ✘ No
https://www.today.com/popculture/britney-her-own-best-publicist-wbna22715757 Yes Yes No article about Britney Spears' children ✘ No
https://people.com/celebrity/sag-awards-2016-celebrities-in-peoples-photo-booth/ Yes Yes No promotion of PEOPLE's Photo Booth with photo credit for Brubaker ✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/ciara-new-album-baby-bump-harpers-bazaar-interview-7717081/ Yes Yes No photo credit for Brubaker ✘ No
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/photographers/dani-brubaker Yes Yes Yes portfolio for Interview magazine ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep - Thank you for the feedback. I found the book and it's not a self-published. It appears to be someone who is inspired by her work. I have also found sources related to photos she took of Britney Spears in 2009. I have not added the sources yet as I am still reading over them as some appear to be contentious, so I am being cautious as what is sourced. I am not related in any form to the artist, so I can attest it is not a WP:PROMO as suggested. This article is within the scope of WP:VISUALARTS; WP:NEWMEXICO; along with several others. I would kindly ask you to reconsider and assist me with the page. I am new to Wiki editing, so would this better suited for WP:DRAFT?
    Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Today articles are about Brubaker allegedly selling photos of Spear's children, later revealed by the same source, Article on Today.comSpears sold the photos herself during her public meltdown. The article is about Brubaker. Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lulu.com book is self published by the person who wrote it - Lulu is a self-publishing platform, not a reliable publishing house. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for clarifying. Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 01:40, 4 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWAD (disambiguation)

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

Unneeded per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation page disambiguates only one non-primary topic which is already linked in hatnote. Speedy deletion was declined based on incorrect interpretation of G14. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Guerrero

[edit]
Edgar Guerrero (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)

Nominated for deletion as WP:BLP1E: known only for appearing on La Academia and his romantic involvement with Yuridia. The article has existed for just over 18 years and the subject has yet to demonstrate any other notability. Attempts to find anything notable about the subject only resulted in tabloid-style information about Yuridia; the fact that she is notable does not confer notability onto him.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, N'Djamena

[edit]
Embassy of the United States, N'Djamena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacking secondary sources specifically about the embassy. One source is about the death of the president of Chad, another is about various countries reducing their diplomatic presence due to fighting. Does not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 3 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. asilvering (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor G. Dodig

[edit]
Victor G. Dodig (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)

Refs are routine coverage, interviews. Non-rs whos who. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kollam Sailors

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

Another non notable team in the Kerala Cricket League. 3 teams from this league are at a current AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleppey Ripples, but this article was created in mainspace anyway- after being rejected at AFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English immigrants to America

[edit]
List of English immigrants to America (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 scope of this list is too broad; there are 212 people in just Category:English emigrants to Massachusetts Bay Colony alone. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles of people who were English emigrants to the North American colonies. toweli (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redon Danaj

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

No significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:24, 3 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 Blood, Sweat & Tears. ✗plicit 14:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dorr

[edit]
Larry Dorr (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions and snippets. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 3 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 Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University. ✗plicit 13:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDK College of Engineering

[edit]
KDK College of Engineering (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)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, routine, or school/college databases. Recommend Redirect to Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a nice solution. Not notable college as stand-alone page. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Chropovský

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

Yet another long-time stub about a Slovak footballer named Matúš, he has only played a few matches in the second tier that lasted a total of 584 minutes so far. Secondary sources from my searches did not show any significant coverage of him. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 3 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. Malinaccier (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavnagar Terminus railway station

[edit]
Bhavnagar Terminus railway station (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 much coverage beyond that available in database sites. recommend Redirect to Surendranagar–Bhavnagar line. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no doubt that the station is quite old (it is easy to see it mentioned in the 19th century books), but all my attempts to find RS for WP:V failed. In particular, the reference "Passenger Amenities Details ... Raildrishti" was a disaster (no information at all, just the promotional links, I had to remove it). Unless someone can point me to at least a short coherent text about the station, Redirect. There are tons of articles about Indian stations like that, all adorned by the links to Raildrishti.in. Викидим (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response refers to other editors than me. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and articles should never be taken hostage if the references are not in the article. We have enough AfDs already. Rather, use the NEXIST and SOFIXIT approach. gidonb (talk) 22:14, 9 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 Violet Line (Delhi Metro). asilvering (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Masjid metro station

[edit]
Jama Masjid metro station (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)

Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. Fails WP:GNG. Recommend Redirect to Violet Line (Delhi Metro). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Danaj

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

Only played in a semi-pro second-tier league, so fails WP:SPORTCRIT - unless there are sources. This seems much too short to be significant, this bears a Wordpress logo (blog) whereas this is a match report mostly made up of quotes. It's about two people, Ruben and his brother Redon Danaj. I have notability doubts about Redon Danaj as well, otherwise he might be a merge target. Geschichte (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan

[edit]
Mohammed Tharwat Hassan (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)

Associate Professor with an h-factor of 12 and no major awards. No evidence that he comes close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria. While notability was challenged in a tag by Kj cheetham in Feb 2022, it appears it was not followed up on. He has somehow slipped through the normal review process that would avoid non-notable academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability is not established. Criterium 1 is not let either as noted in the initial report (low h-index for a field that usually has very high ones due to collaboration)
JamesKH76 (talk) 10:31, 5 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 Qloo. ✗plicit 13:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Elias

[edit]
Alex Elias (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 AI founder, without a significant claim of seperate interest - -not sure if we should roll up into the AI company Sadads (talk) 12:09, 3 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 under whichever name appears to be the most present in sources. Star Mississippi 00:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bou Lahrath

[edit]
Bou Lahrath (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 couldn't find sources to verify this information is correct. Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GAZETTEER. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Communes in Mauritania are significant administrative subdivisions with mayors, deputy mayors and councillors. It is a waste of everyone's time to keep nominating these articles for deletion. It would take less time and would be much more useful if you would expand these stubs.

To find a solid source for any of these communes, check the foot of the article, where you will see.

Click on the link to Communes of Mauritania, scroll down, and you will see

Click on that link, click "ok" in the search box, and you will get a list of all the communes. Click on the link for Bou Lahreth and you see information like

BOU LAHRATH
Région : ASSABA
Commune Collectivités urbaines à vocation agricole, pastorale ou agropastorale
Le Maire : Zeine O/ Ahmed Salem O/ Kebady PRDS
Les Maires Adjoints : Ahmed Salem O/ Salem, El Hareth O/ Nouh, Ahmed O/ Bilal, Mohmed Mahmoud O/ Youba, Habiboullah O/ Mohamed Mensour
Les Conseillers : Abdellahi O/ Naji O/ Khouna ( décedé le27 avril2002 ) Demab O/ Mohamed Radhi Sidi Mahmoud O/ Sidi Mohamed Moustapha O/ Mohamed Habib Mohamedou Naji O/ Outhmane Hadrami O/ Mohamed Abdel Wehab El Ghassem O/ Mohamed Jiddou Mohamed Nouh O/ Mohamed Salem Brahim O/ Mohamed Inejih O/ Bilal Boubacar O/ Salem

Yes, it is indeed a commune of Mauritania in the Assaba Region. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 3 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 none looks to be emerging. Suggest discussing a potential rename on the Talk before bringing this back. Star Mississippi 00:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red (slur)

[edit]
Red (slur) (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)

Unnecessary WP:INCDAB. 2 of the 3 entries could be summarized by Red (political adjective), which itself redirects to Red#In politics. Meanwhile, Redskin or Red people aren't listed in Red (disambiguation), so its importance is unclear. I don't really see potential for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. – sgeureka t•c 08:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly no consensus and discussion ongoing with lots of options brought up. Just a reminder that an AFD can't close with a Move closure, if that is what you want, choose Keep and then start a move discussion afterwards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Ringbeater

[edit]
Belgian Ringbeater (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)

Cannot find reliable significant secondary coverage. Only found this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/American_Pigeon_Journal/gadOAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Belgian+Ringbeater%22&dq=%22Belgian+Ringbeater%22&printsec=frontcover (trivial mention) and this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Pigeon_Breeds/WECq0AEACAAJ?hl=en although I cannot access the latter to confirm if it actually mentions the breed or not. I'm not aware of any active pigeon fanciers on Wikipedia to ask about this either. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that an extended definition by a national fancier club constitutes a reliable source on the breed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fancier clubs are self-published and non-independent. They're only really useful for basic information such as the breed standard. They don't satisfy the independent requirement of WP:GNG even ignoring their self-published nature. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom had found the same source I did, so it's just not enough for coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not aware (happy to be proven wrong!) of any guideline whereby breeds would be inherently notable, so I'll assume they must satisfy WP:GNG, and the sources either in the article or in this convo aren't enough for that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 9 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. (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riddlesdown railway station

[edit]
Riddlesdown railway station (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 train station per WP:NTRAINSTATION. Cannot find WP:SIGCOV on Google News or Google Books. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:17, 3 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! 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

César Grajales (political commentator)

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

A lot of paid coverage; I don't think there is any in-depth coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:10, 3 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! 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America Mortgages

[edit]
America Mortgages (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 a lot of clean-up of spammy references, there is nothing left about this mortgage company. Fails WP:NCORP. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Services

[edit]
Forensic Services (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)

Can find very little evidence for the continued existence of this unit. The only provided reference is A) dead and B) a primary source.

The one evidence I can find for existence of this "SCD 4" is this newsletter from 2005!

In any case, even if it exists, does not seem to be particularly notable and hence does not warrant an article Elshad (talk) 08:05, 3 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 per WP:SNOW. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 G7 Games

[edit]
2026 G7 Games (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)

Completely unsourced, and no actual evidence that this event is taking place. WP:TOOSOON also applies. CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 3 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ji (surname 蓟)

[edit]
Ji (surname 蓟) (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)

Nonnotable surname (only one notable individual with this surname, who probably died 1800 years ago and who has no page on enwiki); material can be merged into Ji (surname). We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, unless a stronger reason for deletion can be provided. The article currently cites multiple sources – is there something wrong with them? It doesn't make sense to merge to what is effectively a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first source is just a list of surnames from 1,000 years ago. It is a trivial mention and improper use of primary sources. The second source doesn't mention the surname, I can't really tell if the third source is reliable or not, it appears to be user generated but it may just be how the site is presented. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Zhu, Tianmin 朱天民 (2009). 姓氏的尊嚴：從姓氏起源察知神對人無盡的愛 [The Dignity of Surnames: Discover God's Endless Love for People from the Origin of Surnames] (in Chinese). Taipei: 歸主出版社. pp. 262–263. ISBN 978-986-6769-160. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "我所姓的這「薊」,很少人能正確的認識,當然是因為這姓氏太少;可 是,究其歷史卻是相當久遠。約等於士師後的撒母耳時代,周武王封黃帝裔 孫於「薊」,即今日的北京城西的大部分地區,後代就以「薊」為姓而留存。"

      From Google Translate: "Very few people can correctly recognize my surname "Ji", of course because there are so few people with this surname; but Yes, its history is quite long. Around the time of Samuel after the Judges, King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty named the descendants of the Yellow Emperor "Ji", which is most of the area west of Beijing today. The descendants continued to use "Ji" as their surname."

      The book notes: "然若查考古人為何以圖二的「草」,與圖三的「魚」和圖四象形的「刀」 來組成,而稱開紫色小花之菊科花草的名字。乍看之下,它們似乎是毫不相 干;當然,依造字的原則,可叫我們知道它是一種草的名字。又因它的葉子 為魚翅狀,所以就如此組合。可是,古人又把它的右旁組以圖四的「刀」, 真會使這魚和草都不敢面對。"

      From Google Translate: "However, if we look into why the archaeologists combined the "grass" in Figure 2 with the "fish" in Figure 3 and the pictographic "knife" in Figure 4 to name the flowers and plants of the Compositae family with small purple flowers. At first glance, they seem to have nothing to do with each other; of course, according to the principles of word creation, we know that it is the name of a kind of grass. And because its leaves are shark fin-shaped, they are combined like this. However, the ancients also placed the "knife" in Figure 4 on the right side of it, which really made the fish and grass afraid to face it."

    2. Xu, Tiesheng 徐铁生; Hou, Xiaoru 侯笑如, eds. (2017). "263蓟　Jì". 《百家姓》新解（精） [A New Interpretation of "Hundred Family Surnames" (Excerpt)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 978-7-101-12533-7. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.

      The book notes:

      姓不在中国400个常见姓之列。分布于北京市，河北石家庄、正定、滦南、永年，山西太原、大同（市）、朔州、阳泉、长治（市）、介休、万荣、孝义、汾阳、文水、绛县，江苏南京、常州、无锡、兴化，浙江宁波、海盐，安徽宿松，福建柘荣、三明，山东高密、烟台，河南中牟、宁陵、义马，湖北武汉、钟祥、英山、荆州、石首、公安，湖南长沙（市、县）、岳阳（市）、华容、益阳、攸县、衡阳（市），贵州正安，陕西西安、合阳，甘肃酒泉等地。望出内黄县。

      蓟姓有内黄堂、宗新堂等堂号。

      相传蓟姓出内黄帝轩辕氏之后，蓟姓家族因以“宗轩”为家族堂号。

      蓟氏，祁姓。以国为氏。蓟国，在今北京城西南隅。周武王时始封，后灭于燕。

      蓟姓历史人物有：蓟辽，东汉建安中驸马都尉，齐人。

      From Google Translate:

      The surname is not among the 400 common surnames in China. It is distributed in Beijing, Shijiazhuang, Zhengding, Luannan, Yongnian in Hebei, Taiyuan, Datong (city), Shuozhou, Yangquan, Changzhi (city), Jiexiu, Wanrong, Xiaoyi, Fenyang, Wenshui, Jiangxian in Shanxi, Nanjing, Changzhou, Wuxi, Xinghua in Jiangsu, Ningbo, Haiyan in Zhejiang, Susong in Anhui, Zherong, Sanming in Fujian, Gaomi, Yantai in Shandong, Zhongmou, Ningling, Yima in Henan, Wuhan, Zhongxiang, Yingshan, Jingzhou, Shishou, Gong'an in Hubei, Changsha (city, county), Yueyang (city), Huarong, Yiyang, Youxian, Hengyang (city) in Hunan, Zheng'an in Guizhou, Xi'an, Heyang in Shaanxi, Jiuquan in Gansu, etc. The ancestors came from Neihuang County.

      The Ji surname has hall names such as Neihuang Hall and Zongxin Hall.

      According to legend, the Ji surname came from the descendants of Emperor Huangdi Xuanyuan, so the Ji surname family used "Zongxuan" as the family hall name.

      Ji clan, Qi surname. The surname is taken from the country. Ji State was located in the southwest corner of Beijing. It was first established during the reign of King Wu of Zhou and was later destroyed by Yan.

      Historical figures with the surname Ji include: Ji Liao, a military commander of the imperial son-in-law during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty, from Qi.

    3. "以蓟为姓 在童话里飞扬" [With Ji as the surname, soaring in the fairy tale]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). 2022-04-06. Archived from the original on 2024-09-09. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "也由于被人喜爱，才有了蓟国，并带来了蓟姓。据《姓氏考略》记载，大约在殷商时期，古代范阳（约今北京城西南一带）因为漫山遍野长着独具气质和才情的蓟，便自然形成一个小国，史称蓟国。蓟国是今北京最早形成的国家之一。... 蓟在中国古代姓氏中的位置也比较理想，开创了神话一般的存在。其中心人物是东汉建安年间名士蓟子训。正史、野史、方志类古籍对他均有记载。"

      From Google Translate: "Because of its popularity, the Ji State was established, and the Ji surname was brought to the country. According to the "Surname Research", around the Shang Dynasty, the ancient Fanyang (approximately the southwest of Beijing today) naturally formed a small country, known as the Ji State, because the mountains and plains were full of Ji with unique temperament and talent. The Ji State was one of the earliest countries formed in Beijing today. ... Ji also has an ideal position in ancient Chinese surnames, creating a mythical existence. The central figure is Ji Zixun, a famous scholar during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty. He is recorded in official history, unofficial history, and local chronicles."

    4. "蓟姓起源,名人及家谱" [Origin of the Ji surname, celebrities and family tree]. Shangdu.com [zh] (in Chinese). 2008-07-17. Archived from the original on 2014-05-08. Retrieved 2024-09-09.

      The article notes: "据《姓氏考略》记载：周武王封黄帝的后裔于蓟（今北京），其子孙便以国名为姓。"

      From Google Translate: "According to the "Surname Research", King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huangdi the title of Ji (now Beijing), and their descendants took the name of the country as their surname."

    5. Wang, Kezhong 王克忠 (2011). 国学精粹 [The Essence of Chinese Studies] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Textile Press [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5064-7230-2. Retrieved 2024-09-09.

      The book notes: "【蓟姓】 西周时,周武王封黄帝的后代在蓟,其就以蓟为自己家族的姓氏。"

      From Google Translate: "[Ji surname] During the Western Zhou Dynasty, King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huang the title of Marquis of Ji, and they took Ji as their family surname."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ji (surname 蓟) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough search. I am in no position to comment on the reliability or independence of the sources, but none seem to offer significant coverage. At most, they read like a minor entry in a genealogy catalog. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After translating from Chinese to English through Google Translate, Zhu 2009 provides 352 words of coverage about the subject, Xu & Hou 2017 provides 205 words of coverage about the subject, and Beijing Evening News 2009 provides about 500 words of coverage about the subject. I consider this to be significant coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 205 words in Xu & Hou 2017, a full 79 words are used for an exhaustive list of all the regions where the name is found, leaving a mere 126 for the actual prose. And much of the Beijing Evening News 2009 is about 蓟国 -- Ji (state in modern Beijing) -- the geographical region, not the surname. WP:SIGCOV is determined by the depth of coverage provided, not by the number of words used to describe the subject. There may be other sources about this surname, but I believe what we see here is what most editors would describe as "blurbs" - short description, usually of promotional nature. Owen× ☎ 11:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is there is sufficient depth in these sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources discuss the origin of the surname 蓟, etymological analysis about the different components in the the character's formation, the places where the surname is most common, the fact that it is not among the 400 most common surnames, how the Eastern Han scholar Ji Zixun [zh] and the Eastern Han military commander Ji Liao (Chinese: 蓟辽) have the surname 蓟, and how King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Yellow Emperor the title of Marquis of Ji following which they took Ji as their family surname. There is enough information that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline). Cunard (talk) 09:49, 10 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. Ordinarily, I'd Redirect to Petroleum industry in Kuwait as an ATD but this subject isn't mentioned at the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kuwait

[edit]
Project Kuwait (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 don't see that the article meets the notability policy; it's just a plan and has not been implemented in reality.-- فيصل (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that there is no mention of Project Kuwait at Petroleum industry in Kuwait at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 3 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. The "delete" arguments are more persuasive. It is by now community consensus that prominent sportspeople are not automatically notable by virtue of their sporting accomplishments, but that they must meet WP:GNG. Although the "keep" side assert that relevant sources exist, they fail to cite these sources in this AfD, and they do not address or rebut the convincing source analysis indicating that the WP:GNG requirements are not met in this case. Sandstein 07:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vandenberg

[edit]
Peter Vandenberg (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. Only primary sources provided, a search for his name and birth name yielded only namesakes in Google news, books and Australian database Trove. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Source assessment table: prepared by User:StartGrammarTime
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://wwosbackup.proboards.com/thread/852/peter-vandenberg ? No Proboards forum No List of stats ✘ No
http://speedwayplus.com/Southampton1961.shtml Yes ? No One picture ✘ No
https://britishspeedway.co.uk/docs/Ultimate_Index_1929-2022.pdf Yes ? Hosted on British Speedway site, but unclear if it's been vetted No Extremely brief statistics ✘ No
https://britishspeedway.co.uk/history-archive/ Yes Yes No Page is a list of archives; search for 'Vandenberg' has no results ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the source analysis doesn't instill confidence in a Keep. Any rebuttal to it? Please provide the sources you think are missing from the table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @StartGrammarTime , as they undertook the source review but didn't cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Liz, I said what is missing in the source table. As did its creator. The opinion right below was solicited. gidonb (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my source table. Thanks LibStar for the ping. My hope was that having seen the source table, someone would be able to add a source that could demonstrate he met GNG. The sources I cannot access are being used to support only extremely minimal information, which makes me believe that there is no other information available in those sources either. Without any information on him from reliable sources, he cannot be notable and thus I must agree with the nominator. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This rider captained his British team for four years in the highest league, in addition to representing his country. Four new sources have also been added to the article including source heading being his name. Pyeongchang (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no inherent notability in representing your country. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Air Serbia. There is no consensus to delete here, and only marginally larger support for the "Keep/Merge" views. I can't please everyone here, but it seems that a Merge outcome would satisfy the most participants, or at least upset the fewest, and is clearly preferable to kicking the can down the road with a "No consensus" close. Once the merge is complete, a separate editorial discussion can proceed about retaining the content at the target page based on the latest RfC about this, but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Serbia destinations

[edit]
List of Air Serbia destinations (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:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. In reality this list is mostly services the airline doesn't present fly, does not fly year-round, or charter flights. It is therefore not a list of flights that Air Serbia actually offered in August 2023.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like aeroroutes.net and www.exyuaviation.com/, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Serbia. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of these WP:NOT arguments are wrong and are inconsistent with the most recent RfC. First, third party reliable sources frequently cover Air Serbia destinations, even in Croatian [51]. This even quotes Vučić about a specific route. Sourcing is not an issue here. The catalogue argument fails because destinations are not "services" in the sense of another business - where an airline flies is clearly essential to understanding the airline, unlike an old style catalogue which is trying to sell you products. WP:IINFO doesn't apply because there's nothing indiscriminate about this at all. This is a valid list and while the sourcing could be improved, there's absolutely no reason to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”per the recent RFC” - care to give us a link here? I’m not aware of a new RFC having closed in this field lately. Having checked on VPP, the Aviation project page, and the WP:NOT talk page I also don’t see one. Regarding the sources you raise, the Jurnarji List source is based entirely on Croation Aviation Portal, apparently a blog, the link to which is 404 but an archived version shows the information apparently to come entirely from the airline since no source is cited. Quotes from government officials hardly matter for notability of what is the state airline.
I also note that this is essentially the same argument that you've made multiple times in a long string of AFDs (15 out of the last 15), all of which closed delete/redirect/merge. FOARP (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - I don't have time to try to save all of these articles right now, but it was the RfC which was appealed which basically said this sort of information is fine to include in the encyclopedia if WP:DUE is mentioned. I also think you're absolutely wrong on policy here, and whenever these are opened up to the community there's never been a clear consensus to delete. Some of these articles do need to be deleted on sourcing grounds, so your 15 for 15 argument is worthless. I also don't know how you can argue Jutarnji isn't reliable, either, it's the second largest news portal in Croatia. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don’t know what RFC you’re talking about. I suspect it’s one of the ones about Airports, which are obviously not the same topic as Airlines. FOARP (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This is not a resource for doing business so NOTCATALOGUE doesn't apply. It is well defined and of limited scope so it is not indiscriminate. Sources do cover the topic, and even if alternative formats for presentation may be better, it does not need to be deleted outright. Reywas92Talk 23:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is just the airline's route map in list form. Also an exhaustive list of the places this carrier has flown to since it was founded nearly a century ago is a clear case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Sunnya343 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Per Reywas92. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Per Reywas92. Боки ☎ ✎ 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge We should merge these information into the airline's article, as per others said,they don't violate it, in addition, we need to stop trying to have airlines destinations list deleted because Wikipedia is the only place that has these information, it is a big mistake that the other ones got deleted, especially the one for Lufthansa, United Airlines and American Airlines, if we really don't need these to exist as a article, we should have merged the airlines destinations list into the airline article itself, a pity that the ones that got deleted was no longer available.... Metrosfan (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At a minimum, it's not clear whether editors prefer keeping or merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge per Reywas92. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 13:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I love you guys but you are making closure very difficult with all of these "Keep/Merge" opinions. These are two very different outcomes. Are you putting them in order, like Keep, 1st choice, Merge, 2nd choice or are most of you saying "Keep/Merge" because that is what other participants said or are you saying that you don't have a preference and either outcome is fine and (shudder!) the closer should decide? Because that is called a "super vote" and hell rains down from the sky when that is suspected of happening. So, please, which is it, Keep or Merge? Like an election, unless we are going ranked voting, you must choose one and only one outcome. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Keep/Merge because my intention is to retain information, but do not really care whether we keep this page, or merge it in with another page. Perhaps I should have written my vote as "Retain Information Content". The tendency years ago on wikipedia was to split a single large page into two or more pages to keep the size of any single page modest. It seems that the tendency now is that it's better to have one large page instead of multiple pages because that way it keeps better to the rules of what page titles are permitted on wikipedia. Ideally I'd like to keep this page because otherwise it makes the Air Serbia page rather large, but if this page has to disappear, then I think it better we just merge the contents of this page into its "parent" Air Serbia page. I favour Keep only very slightly over Merge - I don't really care which of Keep or Merge is the eventual outcome. My worst case option is that we permanently remove the information on this page from wikipedia. Pmbma (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete or optionally* redirect to Air Serbia#Destinations – If the information, can be sourced by reliable secondary sources talking about the destinations as a group or set, not just primary sources talking about new destinations that will soon be added, and also be put into context, then *I would support something other than a deletion* then I would support a merge. However, as it stands now, the majority of the sources, albeit a few, mostly agreeing with the nomination's section on the sources used, do not help establish the list's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC) (Newer opinion in between asterisks "*[...]*". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past, some wiki-editors have preferred an "official" source - namely the Air Serbia website - rather than an independent source. Perhaps we as wikipedians should do a better job about educating people on the merits of an independent source versus a primary source, but saying angry words to volunteers doesn't usually end well. :-)
    I've added a reliable secondary source for many of the destinations. Haven't got every single destination because I don't have time to search the web for hours, but what I have added should mean we have independent and non-dead-link source coverage of about 85% or more of casesPmbma (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the sources added are from the AeroRoutes blog which the nom mentioned. It's a WP:PRIMARY, essentially non-independent source since it's just reporting flight schedule data obtained from the airlines. News stories about upcoming destinations are also primary sources (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS).

    Generally speaking I do believe AeroRoutes and even the airline website itself are reliable. It's easy to confirm whether an airline does or does not operate a particular route, so it would be hard for the airline or some other source to lie about that. As the nom said, such sources cannot be used to establish notability, in other words they can't be used to justify having a separate article on Air Serbia's destinations. But they don't preclude merging the list into the parent article. However, per my !vote above I only support deletion because I believe the list violates WP:NOT. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tend to agree: what is the difference between Aeroroutes and the airline website? If you're going to source the information, why not source it straight to the airline since Aeroroutes information comes direct from the airline anyway? Aeroroutes doesn't do any fact-checking or validation with 3rd party sources before posting their blog posts as far as I can see - it is simply a blog run by an enthusiast - so why not take it straight from the source?
    And this is the essential problem with all of these airline destination lists: they all are basically a list of services provided by a company that comes directly or indirectly from the company itself. There is no independent, reliable third party that treats them as a notable subject. That puts them against both WP:NOT and WP:NCORP. FOARP (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a mistake that the previous airline destinations list articles were already deleted without having the list being added to the main article which is the airline's article, especially the one for Lufthansa, United Airlines and American Airlines, if we were to really delete this article, we need to atleast put the information into the airline article, since it is related to the article, also per WP:NOTCENSORED Metrosfan (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also, each airline articles have a destination section, but it only show a redirect to the destinations list articles for some airline articles, and then shows its codeshare and interline agreements with other airlines, aswell as some history of its network for some articles, which seems misleading, having the redirect to the destinations list be removed after the article is deleted would make the section look misleading as its heading show it's a destination section but show nothing related to it Metrosfan (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does WP:NOTCENSORED have to do with this? Nobody is censoring offensive material.
    When an article is deleted, it means that there is consensus to not merge or redirect the information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus for the article to be deleted doesnt means that the information on the destinations list article cannot be added into the airline article, also, by WP:NOTCENSORED, these information is related to the article's subject and topic,and informations thats related to the article's subject and topic should not be deleted since wikipedia is not censored, and these information don't violate any other policies, as mentioned by some others previously Metrosfan (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand what WP:NOTCENSORED is about. Censoring would be removing profanity, graphic images, information that would make an entity look bad, whitewashing, etc... In the scheme of things, none of what we're discussing would even remotely qualify as censoring. If your definition of censoring is the deletion/removal of information that doesn't meet one of the examples above, would removing a random sentence qualify as censoring since no guidelines or policies were violated? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's reasoning or Merge to Air Serbia. If the outcome is to merge, preferably a paragraph or two summarising their hubs and the continents including some mentions of the major cities they serve may suffice provided that it's properly referenced, however if it's insisted on merging the entire list into the main article, perhaps collapse it so it doesn't overwhelm the article. Coastie43 (talk) 23:40, 8 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 Canada–Kazakhstan relations. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kazakhstan, Ottawa

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

Article merely confirms it exists with its own website as the only source. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --92.77.57.69 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect or opposition to one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 3 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. It would be helpful if the sources brough up in this discussion were moved over to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mexican judicial reform

[edit]
2024 Mexican judicial reform (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)

Borderline, but seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Sourcing is heavily primary. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that though this is not López Obrador's first attempt at judicial reform, this is the most significant. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, you need edit more guys make their big protest JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it is notable and has been especially prominent in Mexico since the 2024 elections. The proposed reform has also caused protests and strikes (which that could easily be its own article) and has attracted attention from other countries (U.S. and Canada). The article should be expanded, covering the proposal and reactions to it (foreign, domestic, and financial reactions). EchoLuminary (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This event could only be argued as failing WP:NOTNEWS based solely on English sources. Mexican media has been reporting on the proposal since at least October 2023 [52], being sustained this year through February [53][54], March [55], April [56], May [57], June [58], July [59][60], August [61][62], and September [63]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This reform has ongoing coverage from Mexican and international press. Also, it is a critical event in current Mexican politics. Added one more source and will continue to work on it in the next days. Alan Islas (talk) 13:04, 6 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! 03:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Disfigurement

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

Band fails WP:BAND with no coverage in reliable sources. GTrang (talk) 02:33, 3 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 NASCAR on TNT. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Inside The Playoffs

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no results aside from the IMDb result, which is not reliable. Conyo14 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. GNG established. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone Academy

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

Unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSCHOOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; see note below Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Alsop, Zoe (2014-10-30). "Letter from Beijing: Inside the private schools educating China's elite". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.

      The article notes: "At the far corner of the abandoned village is a surprising sight: a tidy quadrangle of red-brick buildings stands behind a wrought-iron fence, looking like the Hollywood set of a school. Against the relentless grey of suburban Beijing, the grass lawns are so green they appear lit from within. This is Keystone Academy, whose website boasts that the school will nurture the emergence of “the Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg of China”, tapping in to the ambitions of the country’s new elite. Such schools are wary of journalists, so I posed as a prospective parent to take a look inside. Keystone Academy is modelled on a New England boarding school, and says it uses the same curriculum as Sidwell Friends, where Barack Obama’s daughters study. It is the brainchild of well-connected private investors, and it charges fees of up to £25,000 a year, roughly six times the per-capita income in China."

    2. Bao, Chengrong (2013-09-13). "Keystone Academy seeks students for new curriculum". Beijing Today. ProQuest 1674465023.

      The article notes: "Keystone Academy, a new international school in Beijing, began recruiting its first batch of 300 students last week. Although the school is in its early stages of development, it has already attracted wide attention with its new education model and highly esteemed leadership team. Malcolm McKenzie, the school's founder, said any school can become an international school if it chooses. ... Unlike many of China's international schools, which accept only few students from the Chinese populace, Keystone plans to open 75 percent of its enrollment to locals. Students from Grades 1 to 12 will be required to study a curriculum that puts China in a global context and includes its history, art, culture, politics and geography. ... Keystone's education model focuses on an internationally recognized liberal arts curriculum. Younger students will study the International Primary Curriculum (IPC) that has been widely used at schools in 80 countries. In middle school, they will learn the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program (IBMYP) that has been customized to suit the specific requirements of Keystone."

    3. Holahan, David (2018-02-25). "Keystone Academy - Exporting Education - Creating A U.S.-Style Prep School In Beijing". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.

      The article notes: "In 2011 a Chinese businessman who was familiar with Choate approached Shanahan, who was retiring that year, to help establish a private K-12 academy in Beijing. Shanahan in turn recruited McKenzie to be the head of school and enlisted Centerbrook Architects, a firm known for its work on independent school campuses, to design classrooms and other interior spaces. The result of this international collaboration is Keystone Academy, a day and boarding institution that opened in 2014; it now educates 12,000 students with a capacity for 6,000 more. McKenzie, who recruited several Hotchkiss colleagues to join him at Keystone, said that the current enrollment is more than 90 percent Chinese students, but the goal is to have a three-to-one ratio of indigenous to foreign students, the latter typically being the offspring of foreign officials or businesspeople living in the capital region."

    4. Huang, Jin 黄金 (2018-07-30). "临空港首所国际化学校 拟于2020年招生" [The first international school in Linkong Port plans to enroll students in 2020]. Changjiang Daily [zh] (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "据了解，此前北京美联文华投资有限公司曾于北京市顺义区投资建设国际化学校——北京市鼎石学校。该学校采用沉浸式中英双语教学模式，教授国际课程。此次与武汉临空港经开区管委会签约建校项目，将参照北京市鼎石学校办学思路，结合武汉市教育国际化水平和现实需求，将学校建成武汉市内高水平的、小学到高中一贯制的国际化学校。"

      From Google Translate: "It is understood that Beijing Meten Investment Co., Ltd. previously invested in the construction of an international school in Shunyi District, Beijing - Beijing Keystone School. The school adopts an immersive Chinese-English bilingual teaching model and teaches international courses. The school construction project signed with the Management Committee of Wuhan Linkonggang Economic Development Zone will refer to the school-running ideas of Beijing Keystone School, combined with the internationalisation level and actual needs of Wuhan's education, and build the school into a high-level, elementary to high school international school in Wuhan."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Ministry calms anxiety over private schools". Shanghai Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2016-11-10. ProQuest 1838211347.

        The article notes: "To the public, the law's definition of "for-profit" didn't appear so straightforward, since even some non-profit schools charge fees that some consider prohibitive. Keystone Academy, a school in Beijing, charges annual tuition of over 200,000 yuan (US$29,500) per student, four times the disposable income of an average Beijinger in 2015."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Keystone Academy (simplified Chinese: 北京市鼎石学校; traditional Chinese: 北京市鼎石學校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Cunard. Nomination withdrawn; keep per sources you identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 7 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! 03:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Japan, Kyiv

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

Fails GNG. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, most of these are used to confirm previous ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can you confirm what kind of WP:BEFORE search you conducted and how you went about identifying and assessing any Ukrainian and Japanese language sources as part of that? DCsansei (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there additional assessment of the newly added sources? And does LibStar's original nomination still stand? If not, we can close this, but if so we can continue to discuss whether this article meets the general notability guidelines
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few sources which should take this mission over the GNG and see plenty more. Appears that there was no WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources. I'm not competent in Ukranian but my guess is that there would be additional sources found if a WP:BEFORE was done including Ukranian sources. DCsansei (talk) 07:25, 3 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Rasolofonirina

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:34, 3 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 Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hi-yon

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hyok-son

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahir Dakenov

[edit]
Zahir Dakenov (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:POET, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. No source to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IILM University Greater Noida

[edit]
IILM University Greater Noida (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 degree-awarding institution has insufficient coverage to be notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, hence, fail WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:01, 3 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.