Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 10	October 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Uppsala River Rafting Event

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

WP:ROTM university event. The event is a real tradition, and has its own website: [1], but I can't find any independent coverage in RS, at least not in English. Article seems to have been unsourced since creation. If sources could be found in Swedish I would reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sweden. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't access the newspaper archive I typically use to go though Swedish sources right now, but I think a couple of the ones I've added are substantial enough (a couple of the others help add sources for individual poins, but are less important for notability). This is a major event in Uppsala, tens of thousands of spectators, with proper media coverage. /Julle (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm similarly disadvantaged rn, but essentially in agreement with Julle's analysis. Open print media archives show sustained interest throughout the 80s, 90s and 2010s, most of it is likely brief mentions, but I'm convinced from what I've personally read and seen over the years that there is independent and in-depth coverage in substantial excess to what Julle has already provided. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle and Draken Bowser, even just the sources Julle added in the article as it stands shows significant coverage from two independent sources. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mayan (software). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto_Rosario

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roberto Rosario

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

Why the page should be deleted OXYLYPSE (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the GNG; this individual is not notable. OXYLYPSE (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayan (software). The article from The Register is the only WP:RS that supports WP:BIO notability that I can see, and that's not enough by itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayan (software). I did WP:BEFORE and wasn't able to find another source in English or Spanish. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayan (software), doesn't enough on notability and its not support on WP:BIO. Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 05:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

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

Subject fails notability guidelines and article reads with significant WP:FLUFF. The majority of sources constitute self-published material on the subject's blog or secondary sources based significantly on said blog. Additional sources used appear notable at first, such as this MIT reference, but a look at the url (which includes /egilbert/) identifies this as also being written by the subject. There are one or two interviews the subject has done with reliable sources, but these read similarly to the blog. No reliable source could be found outside of interviews done with him or someone closely related to him. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Washington, and Kentucky. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DJ Cane,

Did you see the previous deletion discussion with Cabrils? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why I went with AfD instead of PROD, which @Cabrils initiated. Please remember to keep this discussion relevant to the merits of the article in question. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was involved in the AfC, and rejected the draft. The author then deleted my comments and rejection (which I consequently reverted). Please see my detailed comments on the Talk page. Then I initiated a PROD. In my view this is at best WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Note also the conspicuous lack of WP:COI declaration (twice requested and twice ignored) makes me think page is WP:AUTOBIO, and thus would be required to very clearly meet relevant notability criteria. Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cabrils, I have added COI declaration. I am not the subject of the article. Read for more info. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. So it's not WP:AUTOBIO but is WP:COI and therefore needs to meet a higher bar for neutrality and clear notability, as defined. Having read all the discussion here as of now, I maintain it's WP:TOOSOON: as I wrote on the Talk page, "No doubt Gilbertson is a gun climber, it's just that a page on him must meet the criteria." Cabrils (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, there is a report at COI/N Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Eric_Gilbertson_(climber). — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DJ Cane, I have declared the COI. I apologize for taking a while to do so. I still believe that Gilbertson's achievements are notable in the climbing world. If the article is written in a more encyclopedic tone by other editors and some of the major sources Gilbertson has done interviews with (mentioned in talk page) are added to the article and his blog is reduced, could the article still be preserved? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KnowledgeIsPower9281, thank you for the COI declaration. I think these would be good steps. I can't speak for others but I still lean delete unless one or two sources that are not interviews or directly referencing his blog are provided. I was not able to find any myself. As I said on the Mount Rainier talk page, I think the work Gilbertson is doing has merit, but I don't think anything meets WP:GNG yet based on what I've seen. I suspect that if his work with Mount Rainier National Park comes out to something, he would then meet the guideline, but a prediction of future notability does not equal current notability.

I saw Gilbertson's work was referenced in The Seattle Times recently, but this falls back to the media blitz he did after publishing his Mount Rainier findings on the blog. If the Seattle-area media attention ends up amounting to more than "fifteen minutes of fame" or comes to extend outside of Seattle, this would also be acceptable to me. That said, we work by community consensus here so my opinion is not the only one that matters. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "outside of Seattle", do you mean Seattle-based media covering Gilbertson's achievements outside of the Washington area, or do you mean sources based outside Seattle? While we have come to a consensus ExplorersWeb is not reliable, Gilbertson has done interviews with international sources such as Nat Geo Poland, BBC, The Times of London, and Sueddeutsche Zeitung (behind a paywall, but Gilbertson has a PDF file available). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to media coverage from sources outside the Seattle-area that aren't interviews but are independent coverage of Gilbertson. A source including quotes from him is fine, but I'd like to see sources that aren't interviews. As it stands right now, the only possible WP:SIGCOV has come in the last month or so related to the Mount Rainier stuff, which falls under WP:TOOSOON as Cabrils mentions.

Note that if this article gets deleted, I recommend retaining a copy (reworked with references to the blog removed) in your sandbox/user space for future use in the event that he becomes notable. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~self~~article subject-promoting article. Graywalls (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Graywalls, if you read my COI disclosure, you would know that this is not self-promotional nor an autobiography as I am not the subject of the article. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say promotional of the article subject. Sources are significantly based on sources associated with the person that is the subject of the article and they're used far, far and far in excess of what's reasonably appropriate for WP:SELF and I'm starting to trim them. Graywalls (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls, thank you for the clarification and trimming down on my primary source usage. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Axad12 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shima (queen). asilvering (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Sima

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

A draft that was recreated in mainspace. Very few/no high quality sources on Google. The sources that exist seem to not have undergone editorial review. Systemic bias might be an issue here, though. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I brought up nothing with a quick Wikipedia Library search. Google yields mostly blog posts and podcasts; some referred to the queen as 'Dayang Sima' or 'Sima of Cotabato', if those are useful as alternate search terms. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— One Google search led me to this Wikipedia page Shima (queen), which has the same story, is from roughly the same region and has far more Wikipedia activity. Shima (queen) is a stub, but still better than this page. Bpuddin (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bpuddin An alternative is to do a redirect. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses that is also fine with me. I'm vote for either delete or redirect. Bpuddin (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Music Stars

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

Unsourced article that clearly fails GNG, as I couldn’t find even any ROTM coverage, let alone SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom is correct that there is absolutely nothing that comes up for this show. I was surprised at this and thought that this may be due to a language barrier in my search, but the show is entirely in English. It just seems to have never taken off; the Facebook account made for it has 500 followers. Mach61 21:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Non-Scripted/Reality_shows_2: listed there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no coverage about this program, so I don't think a redirect is worth it. Gheus (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Show is not significant. Not every show should have its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Pakistan, Malé

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

Diplomatic missions aren’t inherently notable; they need to meet either GNG or NORG, which they fail to do in this case. WP:ATD should be merge or redirect to Maldives–Pakistan relations or List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Maldives, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maldives–Pakistan relations. Gheus (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan: Agreed for a redirect as per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect target article suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan since that makes the most sense to collect all these articles. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan agreed to redirect as per nom. Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 05:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sargodha#Administration. Any editor is welcome to merge content to this article or to Sargodha Division. asilvering (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Corporation Sargodha

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

Fails GNG and NORG as well. WP:ATD should be merged or redirected to Sargodha Division. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sargodha#Administration. This corporation was created for Sargodha city and appears to be active [2]. Redirect is the best option. Gheus (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sargodha Division: Agreed as per nom. A heading within Sargodha Division should suffice. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Sargodha#Administration is also a viable option. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sullivan (author)

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

Something is going on with Sullivans notability; either he's barely notable, or he's not notable at all. The sources in the article are questionable at best, the sources found on Google/DuckDuckGo similarly leave something to be desired. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and California. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks very promotional, no substantial biographical sourcing, no evidence of notability in the third-party sources, a REFBOMB of primary sources and it's by an SPA. It would need much more third-party evidence of Sullivan's notability as a person before a BLP could safely be on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:RS - the sources are all by the subject, or blogs. There are no reliable sources about this person. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ouellette

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

Lack of Notability as proposed by another user. Creating discussion here Dac04 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this could possibly meet NARTIST or GNG. The only source that seems reliable is Filmmaker Magazine, but that's an interview - a primary sourced that doesn't contribute to notability an online before search finds some things on a different person with the same name, but not much on this Dan Ouellette. Deleted previously. Netherzone (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Visual arts, and New York. Netherzone (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pages (citations) I could get to were not RS. See source table below. There is more than one Dan Ouellette, including a jazz musician. I am not finding anything to bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111014225118/http://beinart.org/artists/dan-ouellette/gallery/drawings/	?	?	? unable to reach archived page. Connection timed out	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20110221102515/http://djangomedia.com/directors/Dan-Ouellette	?	?	? unable to reach archived page. Connection timed out	? Unknown
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Daniel-Ouellette/author/B004LQTKNC?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true			Amazon listing of books. No reason to infer notability	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110808001228/http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/cyberpunk-art/spotlight-the-art-of-dan-ouellette/	?	?	? unable to reach archived page. Connection timed ou	? Unknown
https://www.instagram.com/artist.a.day/			no mention of Dan Ouellette on this generic Instagram page	✘ No
https://filmmakermagazine.com/53187-dreams-from-a-petrified-head-director-dan-ouellette/		? sub-page of "The Gotham"	interview	✘ 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}}.

Delete per above. There’s zero significant coverage. Even the “artist of the day” reference is from Instagram. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Macedonian mafia

AfDs for this article:

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

I realize that the article was nominated for deletion before. However, significant and in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the so-called "Macedonian mafia" is lacking. The only academic source I've encountered that mentions the Macedonian mafia is Social Change, Gender and Violence: Post-communist and war affected societies. It is true that there are criminal groups in North Macedonia (as well as Macedonian criminals abroad) but I have not seen any sources classify them as part of a broader body, so the whole premise for the article is based on original research. Besides, everything that has been added has been contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing doesn't seem to be there to say that various criminals are connected in an organization called the Macedonian mafia, either by themselves or law enforcement. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardi Curse

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

I see no sign that this curse is a well-known part of football folklore. None of the references provided mention a "Lombardi Curse" and the first hit on Google is about a Lombardi Curse that seemed to plague the Philadelphia Eagles. Pichpich (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says that it is a term in american football Hidden1234P (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and there is zero evidence provided that this is a common term when discussing the Vikings. Content on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Pichpich (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more sources Hidden1234P (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG with no SIGCOV. A Google serach on the topic only shows fan forums and Wiki mirrors so it is unlikely that any significant coverage exists at all. As @Hidden1234P: plans to add more sources, I am requesting this user ping me once sources are added, so I can evaluate and reconsider my vote. Frank Anchor 13:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero WP:RS. I’m not saying that nobody believes in this urban legend. I’m saying that no reliable secondary source has written about it in a significant way. At least one of the sources is “deprecated.” We are not a directory of every sports myth. I’m not again a redirect to an appropriate target, Bearian (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many RSes referring to a "Lombardi Curse" but not necessarily with the Vikings. There are references in a similar context to the Bills and the Eagles (obviously from before they won the Super Bowl a few years ago), and in a different context to the Packers. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Aghaei

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

Fails notability, based on the article most of his achievements are in provincial competitions. his only notable achievement is a silver in Asian "Youth" Championship which I think is not good enough. there is not much coverage about him if you google his name in both Persian and English. Sports2021 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It’s well established consensus that winning a youth championship does not guarantee notability. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neom Stadium

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

WP:TOOSOON; I doubt it will open; nevertheless, the sources are insufficient. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues per ATD. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madripoor

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

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a couple of detailed analyses ELS-JISH, IGN, as well as three that I would consider borderline: Embodying Antiracist Christianity, ScreenRant, and Collider. Meets GNG, and there are other sources that don't per se contribute to notability that can be used to flesh this out. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: or merge with the regions and countries section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having just reviewed Power Broker (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) for GA, I think there are sources in that article at least that could be mined for this one, though they may be MCU-centric. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted above. BOZ (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus to delete; a merge discussion may be fruitful, but can take place at the talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latveria

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

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The references are reliable enough for a comic-book article; and the books in the further reading and references section seem independent and reliable enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Changing my !vote to merge per Pokelego999, too related to Doctor Doom, and only large due to fancruft. But atleast the refs and further reading can be used. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom. All content related to Latveria is intrinsically linked to Doctor Doom and better covered there. I checked the sources used in the article, and the only one used that acts without being entirely tied to Doctor Doom is The Hidden Europe: What Eastern Europeans Can Teach Us, where it is used only in a humorous manner when the author describes Latvia, and is not really significant coverage as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the references already included this conference presentation, which does not appear immediately online, appears to be substantially about this fictional kingdom. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens is there a way to access this presentation? It looks promising, but we can't verify its contents unless it's available to read. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried. Gray literature like this often appears in proceedings of a conference which are often not well distributed or archived online, but it'd likely be possible to find the author's email address and request a copy. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, emailed the author a request about it. Not hard to find, he does other stuff on Dr. Doom like this, and has a literal PhD in Dr. Doom, (looks like his dissertation is now a book, Data and Doctor Doom: An Empirical Approach To Transmedia Characters, but too pricey for me to pick up just to see if this is included) so he likely counts as a topical expert. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being the contents can't be verified, so until we know its contents, I'm not sure we can count this for notability for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:OFFLINE actually says. A more relevant critique might be that multiple sources from the same origin are often counted as a single source for purposes of notability, which appears to apply in this case. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there’s this:

https://core.ac.uk/works/18757010/

pdf here:

https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/14126/1/LatverianIncursions.pdf Sententia Noveboracensis (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same info the author emailed me back. This is already in the article as it stands now as the final reference. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; sufficient sourcing. While a substantial part of the content should be removed, it would still be too long to merge to Doctor Doom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the respectful reasons done by @DoctorWhoFan91:, @Jclemens:, and @Walsh90210:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted above. BOZ (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read over the source, and while it's very good analysis, my problem is that it's discussing Latveria entirely in association with how it impacts Doom's character. Again, like with the other sources, Latveria is an element of Doctor Doom and Doom's backstory. It's entirely associated with him and every source and is never discussed entirely independently of Doom, or with a great level of separation from Doom. I disagree with the assessment that it's too long to merge as well; much of the information in the article is useless lists of random in-universe content, and unsourced information on obscure information that is not necessary for a reader to understand the subject.

Wikipedia:NOPAGE states that even if a subject is tangentially notable, it is better off merged with other content if it is more beneficial to do so. I believe two of the three reasons listed at that page apply to Latveria, I believe. "Does other information provide needed context?" Yes, because Doom is fundamentally a necessary part of understanding why Latveria is important and intrinsically tied to Latveria's reception. "Do related topics provide needed context?" Yes, as per the previous reason, Doom is required to make sense of Latveria's importance and notability. Per the sourcing shown, which I can analyze further if need be, Latveria and Doom are intrinsically tied in Reception, and as a result, readers will receive the needed context substantially more easily if the two subjects are put in the same article, where both can be more easily weighed and understood for how they influence each other's notability and impact.

Right now, I feel as though this discussion has not adequately shown why Latveria inherently needs a separate article from Doom. I feel that this issue needs to be addressed adequately, as right now most participants in this discussion have merely been votes keeping on principle rather than seriously discussing whether or not these sources are adequately meeting Wikipedia's policy guidelines for separate articles or not. I implore the above voters (@DoctorWhoFan91, @Jclemens, @Walsh90210, and @BOZ) to please clarify how these sources are individually notable from Doctor Doom, and what elements of these sources you feel prove your points in this regard. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Madelyn Renée

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--the sole cited source barely mentions Renée, in the context of her relationship with Luciano Pavarotti, but there is no mention of her at that article nor is it clear how WP:DUE that would be. Searching online, I was able to find other brief mentions of Renee as Pavarotti's girlfriend (e.g. [3]) and interviews with her (e.g. [4], [5]) but nothing that provides secondary coverage of her life, career, etc. As written, the article is essentially a promotional resume with zero basis in available sources, and apparently with outright COI editing based on an assessment of the page's history. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Massachusetts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the Pavarotti article. I couldn't find anything substantive myself. Ravenswing 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She also performs as Madelyn Monti and there is some early news as Madelyn Renee Levy. The most substantial coverage I have found is a 2008 piece from the New York Times [[6]] DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep based on the 2008 NY Times article and many other sources I can see online. However, there’s also lot of unflattering information about her out here and there on Google that might implicate BLP. If we were actually neutral in POV, she might want the whole thing removed. Be careful of what you ask for. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the NYT article and other sources, but will require a substantial rewrite to remove WP:PROMOTIONAL sounding material and ensure all material is sourced. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are now multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV which were added after the AfD was initiated Nnev66 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Ladder (Keaney novel)

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability for a decade. Won some non-notable awards. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewed in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, Kirkus. all are on ProQuest which is a WPL resource). Shorter review in Horn Book Guide. Don’t have the time on my hands rn to look further, sorry :(. If not notable, should redirect to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at proquest this time and those didn't seem particularly indepth. Even then it wouldn't meet WP:THREE Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NBOOK is two so WP:THREE doesn’t matter. Yes I haven’t had time to check, including newspapers or other book review sources, hence why I did not vote. Particularly in depth is not a requirement, merely that they be significant. I have not assessed this PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added three reviews, more than satisfying WP:NBOOK. Certainly a paltry article, but not qualified for deletion. Οἶδα (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the added reviews. Toughpigs (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: New sources are sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Queen Vic Fire Week. asilvering (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Victoria

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

Non-notable fork of Queen Vic Fire Week, which has more and better sources. Coverage of this location is incidental to the other article, leaving this article as filled with unsourced material and failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen Vic Fire Week as a fork. The other article is in much better shape, and there isn't WP:SIGCOV for separate topics. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emarid College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no significant coverage in any reliable source. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable enough to stand alone per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL Tesleemah (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a "not" missing there? i.e. "not notable enough..."? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not notable, sorry that was a typographical error Tesleemah (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches come up with some passing mentions, including a couple of mentions in books by people educated there ([7] and [8]). These certainly do not meet SIGCOV. There is very little else. Almost no newspaper coverage. Passing mention in a few papers, such as [9], but again, no SIGCOV. Google turns up a little more, but then the information is not independent and primary. The school website is the best source of information, and has quite a detailed history [10] but this is primary and not independent. It can't count towards GNG. What we do learn from the web page is that the role is about 300 children from nursery to A level. This, then, is a relatively young school - over 30 years old but that is still not that old for a school, and it is a very small one. As a rule of thumb I would not expect a school of this size and age to be notable without some significant and particular factors (famous events, documentary, famous students, notable founding etc.) I see no evidence of any such, and what I have found does not meet GNG. Although I would usually suggest a redirect for a school, non notable Port Harcourt schools have no suitable redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator reason.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Non-notable school. Best, Reading Beans 14:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Not all schools are notable (this appears to be a secondary school, not a “college” in the North American sense). We need at least a few sources. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dickens Hill

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

This is mostly without sources, or sourced to the BBC, which doesn't approach WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is plot recap which is already covered at the character articles. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst it can be argued that the plot is overly detailed, I see no reason to delete this article as it is a significant and length story arc which was a prominent part of the soap during this period. Rillington (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillington do you have reliable sources showing this impact and notability? These are needed in order to build a separate article upon and verify that this subject is meeting independent guidelines. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The length of this story arc - several months - satisfies notability although I accept that references are not as easy to come by, not least as, at the time, the listings for EastEnders in Radio Times were nothing other than a line from the show. Therefore, other plot references are most likely to come from synopses in newspaper listings. Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE search only showed WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. A redirect may be an WP:ATD if we can agree on a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Redirect/merge would result in the information contained about a major story arc effectively being totally deleted from Wikipedia, as merge/redirect is another word for delete. Whilst I said before, I accept that the article is overly detailed, I don't see how anything contained in this article can be retained anywhere else.Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue here isn't so much that the article is "overly detailed", its that it fails the WP:GNG. The sources included, not counting those that are official tie in books, are just trivial coverage. Many are nothing but a sentence mention, and at least one does not even mention the location or story arc. How long the story arc ran for does not contribute to passing the WP:GNG, only significant coverage in reliable sources does, and searches are not showing that this topic has that. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders was not notified about this, which it should have been. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that, despite me wanting it to be retained, that, as it stands, this article is going to be deleted. However, can I please ask that this article is not deleted today, and instead relisted for another week so that Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders is given the chance to provide any input into this discussion and/or address the reasons why others are advocating for the deletion of this article. Rillington (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd support giving some time to WP:EastEnders. They've done some good work before so I'm curious if they can turn up anything for Dickens Hill. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting upon request. Please realize though that a relisted AFD discussion can be closed at any time. If you want to participate, I'd do so promptly and not assume you have 7 days to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to several articles if necessary. Much of the development section could probably be merged with Den Watts, while the character sections should be merged with the relevent sections of List of EastEnders characters introduced in 1988, as well as some parts of the development section, the parts that are relevant to each character. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 21:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loretto School of Childhood

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

There's zero coverage about this school, not even passing mentions in any source.[11]. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is notable enough to stand alone per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL Tesleemah (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator reason.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Non-notable school. Best, Reading Beans 14:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's hard to find any reliable sources that talk about this school. Waqar💬 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tantua International Group of Schools

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

Fails to satisfy the notability guideline for schools, the sources cited here are unacceptable and the only okay source I could find is an interview with one of its alumni who only makes a passing mention [12]. There's no significant coverage about this school. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school lacks significant impact to make her notable, nothing here except they are founded by Ebikebina Tantua II who I can't find article for on Wikipedia as well Tesleemah (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)<[reply]
Delete : Per nominator reason.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Piazza Memorial School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I did a WP:BEFORE search and could only locate 2 sources making a passing mention of this school[13][14], not enough to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is notable enough to stand alone per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL Tesleemah (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator reason.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Non-notable school. Available sources does not meet the criteria for organisations. Best, Reading Beans 14:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. This is another small, private school that seems to be run by a family, and does not get any coverage from secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Terry Mixon

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

Article subject fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR. A search for information on the subject, or his books, shows minimal results and no noteworthy reviews or coverage, failing WP:SIGCOV. The tone is overall promotional and relies entirely on primary sources. Vegantics (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Military, and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at his webpage, his books seemed like they're primarily published through Amazon, which doesn't bode well for notability. His podcast was a finalist for an award, but I can't find other information. Ping if anything is found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. Nothing to indicate that this individual is notable.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Delete per nomination and editor comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somebody must be reading his books, but it’s not me, my friends, nor critics. No secondary sources nor anecdotal evidence. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Segeč

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NOLYMPICS. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nom, a redirect is optimal. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Kemerovo Let L-410UVP-E crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per nom, non notable run of the mill incident. tragedy doesnt neccestate an article. Lolzer3k 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took a quick look for a possible merge or redirect target. Is there any I might have missed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Without one, I'll !vote to delete. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Baduizm. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baduizm World Tour

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Baduizm World Tour. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baduizm per WP:FAILN. Phoenix source is good, can't find anything else of that quality on the tour. Mach61 03:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Baduizm. Additional references for an obscure 25-year-old tour are probably not going to be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArtHouse Live

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

No claim to notability is made within the article and there doesn't seem to be any coverage online. Orgs domain name is expired so can't even see what they have to say for themsevles. First two sections aren't even about the same entity. Article seems to have flown under the radar for several years with same issues. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and Maryland. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a local theater troupe, with no notability for wikipedia's purposes. This was all I can find [15], seems to be another group with the same name... nothing for sourcing found. The one source in the article is primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Football in Albania. ✗plicit 14:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kategoria Amatore I

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

Fails WP:GNG. Search results don't show WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Albania. Demt1298 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question The article is about one of the leagues in the Albanian pyramid all-be-it non-league and low down. I was wondering if it needs merging into Football in Albania or not. Govvy (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per Govvy. Giant Snowman 09:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. Some info on the subject should be available for readers somewhere, and Football in Albania might be a good option. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above LefterDalaka (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilit Karapetyan (singer)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN based on a before search. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Just a single source which appears to be a self penned CV. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source currently cited in the article is [16] – I don't see any evidence that it is self-published or written by the subject? The publisher describes itself as a nonprofit foundation promoting Armenian folk music and dance. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I imagine most available coverage of the subject would be in Armenian. Did your WP:BEFORE search include that, Josh? – Joe (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find much sourcing beyond youtube videos. This [17] doesn't strike me as a RS. The one source in the article is fine I suppose, but it's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Safaryan

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

No evidence of any notability. Two YouTube souces and a source that appears to be a self penned CV. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Red Hill water crisis. This WP:ATD appears to satisfy the draftify !voters, and no delete !votes have argued that the full page history needs deleting, so I hope they'll also be satisfied with a redirect. asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Baehr

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand-alone list. This page falls beyond that primary criterion. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 1.3 million attorneys in the US. I don't see any justification for why Kristina Baehr meets Wikipedia standards for notability. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC with WP:SIGCOV in Law.com, CNBC and KXAN Austin. See source table below.Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the CNBC and KXAN articles perpetuate misinformation and are not reliable medical sources. The concept of airborne toxic mold is long-discredited. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not relying on them for claims about mold and the article has been edited (by you) to include appropriate information that balances claims made by the subject. We're asking if they are generally reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. They are and they do. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Law.com, https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/08/18/3-8m-texas-verdict-lawyer-leaves-intellectual-property-practice-for-toxic-torts/?slreturn=2024100483307	See RSN discussions here, here	✔ Yes
CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/what-homeowners-need-to-know-about-toxic-mold-exposure.html		✔ Yes
KXAN, https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/how-toxic-mold-cost-one-austin-family-their-home-health/	Major local news station	✔ 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~~: Article has sources and the person is notable. Dealing with articles about lawyers is always a little tricky. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Dclemens1971 looks like the best way forward with this article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971 and Dr vulpes. Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP BISHOPS is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about BISHOPS here? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [Red Hill water crisis] ~~Delete~~ I agree with the source assessment of @Dclemens1971 as far as it goes, but I think this is a case of BLP1E - she got coverage in context of her toxic mold case and it wasn't continuing coverage. The Red Hill litigation could be independently notable but I don't see significant coverage that highlights her role. Note that I can't access the Texas Lawyer article.
As Dr Vulpes says lawyer bios can be tricky, and I'm open to other views, but this one seems to fall some ways below the line and looks more like vanity than notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy Several reliable sources (see CBS, KITV, Military.com, Reuters others) describe Baehr's role as lead counsel in the Red Hill litigation. These sources aren't SIGCOV of her, and so don't contribute to GNG, but given the standalone notability of the Red Hill water crisis I think they do take this beyond a case of WP:BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you tracking down the sources, but my point stands. Red Hill has its own article. She doesn't inherit its notability.

CBS and military.com quote her but don't add anything about her except that she's the counsel. Reuters is even briefer.
KITV doesn't mention her

Oblivy (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say she inherits notability from Red Hill. I'm saying that the sources in the assessment above show a GNG pass, and that her involvement in Red Hill (additional sources, not in article, here: Stars and Stripes, Honolulu Civil Beat, Hawaii News Now, KITV, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, KHON) demonstrates that she is not only notable for the mold-related case. If we had just the Red Hill case to go on, I'd agree with you that it's not enough SIGCOV. But we have SIGCOV in reliable sources for the mold-related lawsuit, plus solid reliable-source coverage for another case, and that takes us beyond BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are making is an inherited argument. She is mentioned as the lawyer for the Red Hill case, and nothing in the sources you cited is about her separate from her role in that case. Her role can be discussed at that page. Again, I truly respect your attempt to find sources, but I'm confident in my view. Oblivy (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I highly doubt the quality of the source assessment. For example, the CNBC piece is full of citations and formulations like: "Kristina said," "Baehrs said," and "someone else said....

Here is some random part from the text: And that house, Kristina Baehr said, was slowly killing them. The family abandoned it and everything inside to escape the mold. All of their clothing, toys and personal belongings — even the family Bible — are a total loss. They also remain on a strict regimen of medications and therapies to detoxify their bodies.

On the financial side, the mold nightmare has wiped out the family’s savings, Evan Baehr said. He estimated they’ve spent more than a million dollars on demolition, repair and reconstruction, along with relocation costs, medical copays and out-of-pocket treatment expenses.

“You’ve done everything that you can to prepare to take care of your family financially — and then suddenly a year later, and it’s all gone,” said he Baehr.

The family has filed litigation against the companies that designed and constructed their home as they look to recoup their losses. Kristina said it’s been a long and arduous legal process, but she believes it will be worth it.

“I’m going to go to the ends of the earth and back to get recovery so that our kids can be safe going forward and so that we can rebuild their lives and have the resources to provide for their medical care,” Kristina Baehr said.--Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine, non-notable law career. "Opening a boutique law firm in 2021" suggests this is promo. Sources are reading like an extended CV. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources in the table above talk about her and the family being exposed to toxic mould, not about her law career. Being exposed to mould doesn't make you notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be a concerted effort to protect this article, but per the comment above and nomination, she fails WP:GNG by a substantial margin. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Clearly I have not been sufficiently persuasive. However, I think there’s a reasonable chance that additional SIGCOV could result in the near future depending on the outcome of the Red Hill litigation. It may have just been WP:TOOSOON. I’d ask participants here to extend the courtesy of supporting draftificaton to see if more sources that meet the community’s expectations emerge. (I would certainly commit not to move thus back to mainspace without additional future SIGCOV added.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I recommend a different WP:ATD, that this be redirected to Red Hill water crisis? Similar to draftification insofar as the history and text would be preserved, but without the 6-month countdown to deletion. @Dr vulpes I saw you changed your vote to draftify, and would ask you to consider doing the same. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with that but I would want to hear what @Dclemens1971 thinks first. They have a pretty good grasp on this stuff and it was their mention of sending to draft that made me even think about that path. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "delete" !voters seemed unusually hostile to this topic being in mainspace, which is why I suggested draftification as a preferred alternative. If redirection is acceptable that's fine by me too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Muldoon

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. None of the rest of the hoohah in this bloated résumé demonstrates any notability either. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Delaware. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kogbagidi

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

I don’t see any other thing here to proof notable than relationship with Portable. 7G🍁 (🪓) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. 7G🍁 (🪓) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Vanderwaalforces Spiralwidget (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7G🍁 I noticed that an article I worked on has been nominated for deletion.

Before drafting the article, I conducted a thorough search and found reliable sources from nationally recognized newspapers that verify the subject's notability. These sources provide substantial coverage, and I believe they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Elohothedon 19:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elohothedon, can you provide these sources? Reading Beans 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans References were included in the article. Elohothedon 07:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

@Elohothedon, this confirms that the coverage around him are mainly due to a conflict with Portable. Read about WP:BLP1E to familiarise yourself with the reason for nomination. Best, Reading Beans 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Beans@Reading Beans This is well noted. Elohothedon 15:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverages are mainly due to a fiasco with no lasting effect—(WP:BLP1E).The show promoter is still in their early career, no indication of notability yet. Best, Reading Beans 07:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator - one event does not mean notability for both people, and there isn't much otherwise. Article is promotional in places as well. Ravensfire (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5th Projekt

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

The more I look into this group, I find that they are local to the Toronto area, self-release their material and only play live in the surrounding area. Can't find any notable charts or awards. Karst (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This relies far, far too much on primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, and what little there is for reliable sourcing is not enough to claim that they would pass WP:GNG. But nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass GNG either. Also the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA who never edited Wikipedia on any other topic, and whose username is somewhat suggestive of being one of the band members if you compare the username to the unusual variant spelling of the band member's name. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Afterlife. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness after death

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

Article is largely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH including the section "neuroscience" which uses sources that do not specifically mention consciousness after death. Content should be on-topic we should not create articles that are based on original research. I believe the article should be redirected to life after death which is the main article where the concept of survival after death is discussed. I am not convinced any of this content is worth merging. We already have articles on death, life after death and near-death experience which cover such content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this concept exists in a few religious and cultural traditions, but it’s actually already handled in those contexts in more appropriate pages. I don’t think this is synonymous with life after death in the sense that article means it, because I’m more familiar with it referring to the idea that, despite no vital signs, the dead can still hear (rather than being in some kind of afterlife) but that’s such a fine nuance that the redirect probably is better than any other option. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Afterlife. Agree that this article is a needless fork. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Afterlife. There is room perhaps for an article on a more nuanced concept, as mentioned above, but this article isn't it.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afterlife. Not only is this a duplicate article on the subject, it’s so disorganized, and has a major subtopic entirely empty, that it would require more extensive work beyond ordinary editing. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Sambonsuge

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

23 years ago he played 18 games in Japan's second league, but no indication of significant and independent coverage to make him meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. (No such coverage in ja:wiki either) Also played amateur football for several years. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Yanagida

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

Played two years in Japan's third tier, but no trace of significant and independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT (only primary sources in the ja:wiki). Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Lawyers' Congress

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

lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. Additionally, much of the content is either promotional or lacks verifiable third-party references Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasubhai Digital Media

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, which is a key criterion for notability on Wikipedia. Additionally, the content primarily focuses on the company's promotional activities Moarnighar (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was purchased by another company almost 20 yrs ago and we only have two or three lines in the article. We could merge to the new company, but they don't seem notable either. This appears to be a permastub that was PROMO at one point. non-notable stub article about a defunct company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and very much a WP:PROMO of the new company that acquired it. 2 sources with one deadlink and the other has a passing mention on the purchase. No significant coverage and this page does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships. I see consensus not to keep this as a standalone article. And once the new target page was created, it received immediate support as a fitting merge target. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics

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

Article about a territory which sent a single competitor who did not advance to the semi-finals. Duplicates information at 2015 World Championships in Athletics. A single primary source. Created as part of Lugnuts walled-garden of sporting cruft. Not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are substantially identical:

~~Strong delete~~, preferably alongside 2013 and 2017. Utter cruft failing [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE] created by a user who chased quantity in creating every possible topic under the sun. We need to get rid of many of them. No merge target at Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships, and frankly, that would hardly be encyclopedic either. Lastly, an AFD about Guam from 2018 is in no way, shape or form a valid precedent for a discussion in 2024, given the development of Wikipedia since then. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, the referenced Guam AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. It was closed as keep.

I'm inclined to keep these articles as well if a similar amount of sourcing could be found. Should they be deleted, what policy/development changes between 2018 and 2024 could account for that difference?

Also, in cases where only one athlete competed in one event, a clear WP:ATD redirect target would be the event page of the competitor, i.e. this page for 2013, this page for 2015, and this one for 2017. --Habst (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing has been found, so there's no credible argument to keep

A redirect is completely unnecessary. Who is going to be searching "Montserrat at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics" to try and locate a biography? AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLIST, "list articles" like this can be kept without meeting the notability guideline, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The IAAF entry lists serve as sourcing.

I don't understand the second paragraph. The proposed redirect targets are not biographies, and pageview stats show that these articles do get some traffic. --Habst (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD from 2018 unfortunately doesn't mean anything post-NSPORTS2022. I don't see any value in redirecting. What we do need is to rid ourselves of the perceived need to create every conceiveable combination of XX at the 20XX Y, from a quantity standpoint, without minding quality in the slightest. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with you about creating. I'm just curious about what specifically in NSPORTS2022 or any other consensus/policy would affect a list article like this. It seems like these sorts of articles are allowed per policy and AfD precedent. --Habst (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who deals with a LOT of sports articles and redirects... I would in the relevant situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unsourceable cruft. These are not "lists" so NLIST is inapplicable, though even if it was it'd be quite a stretch to claim a list that can only ever contain a single entry serves any informational or navigational purpose whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes these cruft @JoelleJay? It's fine if you don't believe they should be a standalone article, but I believe referring to them as cruft is inaccurate. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conceit of making a standalone for every single country's performance at every single year of a competition, regardless of sourcing or redundancy or real-world importance, is crufty. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: Crufty isn't how I would describe it, but I do agree that an individual article for each instance of a country at an event is not desirable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above discussion. I really tried to find a policy-based reason for deletion for these, but I just don't think there is one. They serve as navigational aids and according to guideline, don't need to demonstrate any particular notability. --Habst (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea they're "navigational aids" is absolutely ridiculous. You already "voted" keep above, also. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships: Deleting these is not the appropriate approach in my opinion. Country at [year] World Championships in Athletics is not an unexpected search term, and I don't believe deleting these entirely would benefit Wikipedia. If you look at Category:Nations at the World Athletics Championships, I believe it'd be expected that if someone searched for these pages something would show up, so why do a disservice to our readers and delete them entirely? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if they were deleted, they would be the only red links within the relevant templates (Template:Nations at the 2013 World Championships in Athletics, Template:Nations at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics, and Template:Nations at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics). See Algeria at the World Athletics Championships and Aruba at the World Athletics Championships as examples of what this could/should be if merged. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with merging, but this article doesn't exist yet...? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships per Hey man im josh. This information should be somewhere on Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Please do not suggest a Merge or Redirect unless there is an existing target article or you plan on creating one. A Merge can not be carried out by the closer if the article doesn't exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This stub article has only one source, and in my opinion, it fails WP:GNG. It's only one sentence long, so I don't see how it can be considered a list. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST as well. In fact, I don't understand why there should be an article about a tiny nation of less than 5000 people sending one athlete to a championship. DesiMoore (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I created Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships today as a potential merge target. --Habst (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Habst. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the merge target exists, merge with prejudice for all "X at the Y" articles of similarly low quality. Geschichte (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Black Racing

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

Defunct and unsuccessful racing team that only competed for three seasons. The few citations are trivial & routine coverage of a sports team, failing NCORP. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Motorsport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Did not finish" and 11th and 12 place finishes aren't notable. Company is defunct and doesn't appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Nagesh

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

Lack of references and don't think this is notable. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see a single claim to notability, and most hits on the internet are either other wiki pieces or repeats of the same phrases. I would not say there is a good claim here.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

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

Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nom, you are right. I have gone through all the source and they never talked about him. They were only mentioning what he announced.--Gabriel (……?) 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At a critical look at the article, Subject can not stand alone from NITDA. Aside NITDA, what else was their impact and is their any source to confirm the notability?Tesleemah (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your reason given then that calls for a delete and not a merge. Even Olusegun Obasanjo who commissioned the NITDA, biography was not mentioned there neither anyone who has been appointed as the chairman. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi can be mentioned in the NITDA article but not this full statement which contains his biography. Gabriel (……?) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the "Director General" of the National Information Technology Development Agency of the Nigerian government is enough to meet notability per WP:NPOL. Apart from being a position appointed by the President, he has taken the office twice by different Nigerian presidents. Since NPOL justifies appearance in multiple reliable sources, I can see some coverage in newspapers including bagging a honorary award. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that NPOL specifically says he should not be as it isn't a top level position. Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find sigcov in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NPOL, not only is the subject the current Director-General of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), this is a role he has assumed twice under two Presidents. I can also see significant press coverage. B.Korlah (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim "significant press coverage" in a deletion discussion, you need to actually provide the links so that other editors (and closer) can determine if the claim is valid, or hyperbole. As for being appointed under two presidents, that has zero to do with notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as there is disagreement on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL. It would greatly help the case of editors arguing to Keep if they could bring in sources that would help establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to come into an agreement regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. Is a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade Runner (franchise)#Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night

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

The book is not notable in any way. For a long time (2001-2021), this article existed without references of any kind. It currently holds the record for the longest such article on the English Wikipedia, which is interesting, but isn't enough to make it notable (per this discussion). Of the two references that were then added, I have just removed one as circular, apparently based on this Wikipedia article, as are most of the handful of sources that one finds on Google. The remaining reference is so weak, it may as well not be there, see my talk page comment. I have notified the relevant WikiProject before, without reply. Renerpho (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Renerpho (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blade_Runner_(franchise)#Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Night. I couldn't find a single source on this book that discusses it specifically and isn't just a listicle with a brief mention. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I agree with the proposed redirect. Renerpho (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Cinemas

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

Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regurgitated company announcements (such as the ones you've linked) fail GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. "Significant Coverage" isn't one of the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 18 October 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⁺⁺ 13:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to CESC Limited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Electric Traction Company (Mumbai)

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

due to its lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it difficult to establish notability. Additionally, the content primarily relies on primary sources and promotional material, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CESC Limited, the company that this firm was ultimately merged into per Raman Dubey, 2015, as an AtD. No standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Lutheran Mission Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Plenty of Ghits from Lutheran congregations affiliated with ULMA, but no significant, reliable, independent coverage found. schetm (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG-qualifying sources in article and none found in a search for this four-congregation micro-denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam School of Journalism

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGCRIT. I couldn't find multiple reliable sources, which are independent and address the organisation in depth and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, Schools, Africa, and Tanzania. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([18] [19] [20] [21]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't close AFDs with Move closures which are an editorial decision. If you want this outcome, argue for a Keep and then a page move can be discussed. Also, it really helps the closer if you provide a link to the exact Redirect or Merge target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 18 October 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⁺⁺ 13:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term is far too vague to be encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely self-explanatory DICDEF, and the concept is so general I don't see how it could be expanded into a full article on different types or examples of technical failure, etc. without massive amounts of OR and/or SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Technological failures category that covers this pretty well already (and I guess would be a search result if this page didn't exist, so no need for a redirect). Adam Sampson (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this could be improved beyond a dictionary definition. The term/concept doesn't appear to have been theorized by philosophers or STS scholars. I could only find passing mentions like this one: "In the case of new and innovative technologies, we do not have accident statistics for calculating failure probabilities for the simple reason that no accidents have yet occurred. In such cases, engineers often employ fault trees or event trees in order to estimate the probability of failure. An event tree sketches possible sequences of events that can follow some kind of potential technical failure, like the failure of a plane’s landing gear to properly operate. A fault tree sketches the possible series of events that can lead to an accident such as, for instance, the crashing of an aeroplane." Suriname0 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manouchehr Behzadi

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

Apparent memorial page for an Iranian activist based on related or possibly unreliable sources. Holding senior positions in Tudeh does not seem to me to amount to a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to UFO sightings in the United States. Since there is an objection to a Merge, I'm closing this as a Redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sperry UFO case

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

None of the cited sources are WP:RS. After searching, I cannot find a single WP:FRIND source to cover this topic. It's had a banner warning that it gives undue weight to the fringe viewpoint, but every source I can find is either an interview with the witness or from within ufology. I checked some books that cover many famous UFO sightings like Curtis Peebles' Watch the skies!: a chronicle of the flying saucer myth, and I don't see this mentioned. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, History, Mythology, Science, and Astronomy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, with the additional note that some of the sources are initially linked to discussion groups, but even digging past that they just further link to primary sources. No reliable secondary sources. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to UFO sightings in the United States – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of worthwhile sourcing on which an article could be built. Merging when there is no encyclopedic content to merge is not a viable alternative to deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Voyles

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

Like John Storm (AfD discussion) another bio of a fairly routine soldier from the American Revolutionary war. This article appears to be pieced together from primary source and family records; I can't find anything that would indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Hog Farm _Talk 01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina. Hog Farm _Talk 01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting family history project perhaps, non-notable otherwise. Appears to be a routine solder in the war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass any other inclusionary standard. Seems a bit like a family genealogy inspired article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to National Library of New Zealand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa

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

I have found next to nothing online that establishes notability for this organisation. The content could possible be merged to National Library of New Zealand as they seem to be the main drivers of the project. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful article with good citations of its own significance nationally in Aotearoa New Zealand public library services. I don’t think merging with the National Library of New Zealand article would be useful to either subject as the latter is mostly a legal deposit library not dealing with networked computer access.Rhagfyr (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NCORP and GNG. All sources are primary. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if Merge to National Library of New Zealand is deemed inappropriate. WP:USEFUL is insufficient to keep. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge as an editor is arguing against this outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National Library of New Zealand. There are a few sources and I was able to find another short source but all together it's pretty weak. Where if merged with National Library of New Zealand it would slightly improve that article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of The A-Team characters#John "Hannibal" Smith. It would have been helpful if new sources brought up here had been added to the article or links provided in this discussion so that other editors could have evaluated them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced information into List of The A-Team characters#John "Hannibal" Smith due to WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. There are probably sources out there to demonstrate sufficient notability, but as long as no-one is willing to incorporate them into this article, it makes more sense to cover this as part of the character list. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information into List of The A-Team characters#John "Hannibal" Smith would indeed be the smart move here. A detailed page on the character itself would be better at home on an A-Team Wiki, but sourced information could be incorporated into Smith's entry on the character list page. TH1980 (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep After a WP:BEFORE search, I found mentions in "A 1980s Childhood", "Crime Fighting Heroes of Television", and "Television Series of the 1980s". Some of these might be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs but it convinces me that further sources might be out there. I won't stand in the way of a merge if editors feel that is the best course. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Gül

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

Being mayor of a town of 50,000 doesn’t make for a WP:NPOL pass, and despite his local controversies I don’t think the subject is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Rock Township, Divide County, North Dakota

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

Fails WP:NTOWN. All references I found were either trivial, census/directory information, or referring to the historical site. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't necessarily disagree that WP:NTOWN is failed here, but I do want to mention that there are a plethora of city-related articles that fail this test. Should we delete them all, too? I believe that simply having the historical site there makes it much more notable and worthy of an article than thousands of other places covered on Wikipedia. I should note that I also made this article within the scope of WP Cities, and adhered to their guidelines for US places, where applicable. SouthernDude297 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should be deleting and merging more places like this. The township is not notable because there's a historic site within it; that fact is also at Divide County, North Dakota. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is NTOWN violated? It is a populated, officially recognized place. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of its sources (or any that I could find) confer notability. As for its current sources, census data and GNIS info does not provide notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NTOWN is a notability guideline which specifically addresses this class of article. While the first reference is not useful, the census most definitely is a reliable source and all that's needed to satisfy NTOWN. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes reliability, but not notability; which NTOWN explicitly excludes census data from determining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NTOWN excludes census tracts from presumed notability for "populated, legally recognized places," not census data. The question would be if North Dakota townships, which are considered a form of local government, meet the definition of a "populated, legally recognized place." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought Townships were always kept _pbp 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of its legal recognition that would definitively meet the criteria for the presumption of notability for NTOWN. GNIS says its a civil township, which would likely count as being legally recognized, but GNIS isn't reliable for the declaration of that. Further, I can't find any information from Divide County (which it is located in) explaining its status, beyond what just looks like tax information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this would help, but here it, and the rest of the Divide Co. townships, on a map published by the Divide County government, found here. SouthernDude297 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It contributes to reliability, but not inherently its notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: Township notability varies by state or province. In North Carolina, for instance, they've had no particular significance for >150 years; counties are the important subdivisions. In New Jersey, townships are more important than counties. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. It's not true that townships are always kept. As seen at List of townships in North Dakota, only a small portion of the state's more than 2,500 townships even have articles since there's literally nothing to say about them beyond the census statistic. Only 1,314 of these townships actually have local governments. These are also not the same as towns and NTOWN does not really apply: the entirety of state was historically divided into townships and most including this one are mere artifacts and statistical areas. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Can you point to a previous example of a North Dakota Township being deleted? Have they actually been deleted, or just never created? _pbp 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any others specifically in North Dakota, but there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of La Harpe Township, Allen County, Kansas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averasboro Township, Harnett County, North Carolina. I do not believe these townships need their own articles and that the very limited information can be (and already is) covered in the county article and township list. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the applicability of the ones you've listed. The Kansas ones seem to overlap with other entities and the North Carolina ones seem to be legally defunct. This is neither, it just only has three people in it. _pbp 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Wikipedia:OTHER is an argument NOT to make in AFD discussions, so don't really matter. Djflem (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was that township articles are always kept. It isn't true, as he showed by these examples. WP:OTHER is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHER is relevant whether claiming they are kept or not kept.Djflem (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the townships which have elected boards, Writing Rock is among [https://www.nd.gov/government/local-government 1,314 of 2500 mentioned above) (see: https://dividecountynd.hosted.civiclive.com/county_government/county_offices/auditor/township_officers and https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t58c04.pdf), so it is defined geographic populated place and political entity, (https://www.ndstudies.gov/gr4/citizenship/part-3-local-government/section-3-township-government) which pass Wikipedia:NPLACE, plus it's home of historic site.Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. We do not keep township articles in every state because their importance varies wildly. For example, in North Carolina they were enacted and then almost immediately ignored. I get the impression that in ND they have some function with land use/zoning matters, but they otherwise do not appear to provide any of the other aspects of local government; I could not find anything that outlined what their powers are but I found a state land use form requiring a township officer signature. Be that as it may, I note that the list of officers in the state website gives the names of three people living at the same address which indeed is within the township, and if you believe the census, those same three people are the only people living in the township! It's easy but meaningless to hold an election when the only people who can vote are the officials (and I note that of the other three listed, one lives elsewhere in the county and the second lives in another county; the third has no address provided). I'm also quite dubious that location of the eponymous monument is a point of notability for the township; I had to verify it with a map. The fact that such a large percentage of the townships lack officials indicates their relative lack of importance, and when it comes down to it, it appears all that we can give for them as a rule is geography and populations, which can be served well enough with a map and a table, respectively, in the county article.

As far as ND township articles as a group, it doesn't look as though a great many have been created. One or two users started mass-adding them but did not get far. I found this stale user page for example which for the first county has a reasonable idea for a county table structure. And it contains most of what one would put in an article, so I'm not seeing the need for individual articles. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(North Carolina and North Dakota are not the same state.) Would seem that the name of the Writing Rock monument likely lends its name to the township, and is an important piece of history located within it.Djflem (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I an aware of which state is which, and if you think I confused them, you need to reread the passage. Yes, "it would seem", but that doesn't give the township any notability, and never mind that I have come across no source for that belief. The point is, townships are not necessarily that important in the state scheme of things, and they range from non-existent (Maryland) to vestigial (NC) to possibly more important than counties (NJ). What I'm seeing in ND is that they appear to be of minimal importance, especially given that around half of them have no governance and appear to be just lines on a map. Indeed, the very difficulty of finding out why they exist and what function they serve is an indicator that as individual bodies they are probably no more than minor administrative divisions. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Seemed you wanted to make a point about NC as being relevant to ND and therefore mentioned it in the 2nd sentence about ND. Djflem (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As Djflem noted, this community is included as one of the townships with governmental officials and appears to be a political entity. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~. Regardless of whether a single household is actually being treated as a "political entity", NGEO only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. That this extant US place has no accessible sources on it beyond directory-level info shows it has no need for a standalone article at this time. EDIT: Merge, per Sirfurboy. The info is best contextualized in the target article, which has the benefit of actual independent sources on the park. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated, legally recognized place and there is enough in-depth historical information about Writing Rock Township specifically in books such as Stories and Histories of Divide County (1964) – the main section about the township is on p. 454 but there are also other pages discussing various aspects of its history. In addition, as others have mentioned, the township is the location of Writing Rock State Historical Site, which makes it distinctive. Newspapers.com turns up obituaries about people who were born in or homesteaded in Writing Rock Township; a five-year-old girl who was killed by a horse in 1960; a farmer who threatened his neighbors with a rifle and tried to kill himself when approached by police in 1920 – even if none of this is worth mentioning in the article, it demonstrates that it was a real place where people lived (and not "just" a directory listing). (Of those clippings the most interesting one is the Bismarck Tribune article about how the 1928 election returns for Writing Rock Township were not counted by the North Dakota secretary of state because the automobile transporting them was destroyed by fire on its way to Crosby.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirection. Any opinions about the most recently found source?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been relisted so many times. Should've just been closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. All these relists smack of desperation for a delete _pbp 02:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89, well, you'd be wrong. As my relisting comment states, it seemed to me like opinion was divided between Keep and Redirection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Writing Rock State Historical Site or else keep. I am undecided, but I have looked at the sources provided by Cielquiparle above against GNG, and these won't count for a GNG pass. I summarise my view below.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Divide County. Divide County, ND: s. n. 1964. Retrieved 22 October 2024.	The book is subtitled Stories and Histories of Divide County, written by the Participants or Relatives. That is not independent, nor secondary.	? It seems to be well organised and a useful local history. The authorship may raise some concerns but I would give it a pass on reliability.	8 paragraphs of local history.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/851866194/?match=1&terms=%22writing%20rock%20township%22		The newspaper report is reliable.	A primary sourced newspaper article simply reporting that election returns were destroyed in fire. Nothing actually about the township.	✘ 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}}.

However this is a populated place, and the appropriate SNG is WP:GEOLAND which has a presumption of notability for a populated place. That presumption is indeed rebuttable per JoelleJay. Yet it is pointed out that the notable Writing Rock State Historical Site is located here. And against that, GEOLAND is clear that notability is not inherited. We have very little to write an aticle from. We could use the first source above, but that source is problematic. We have a township that exists, is populated, has a notable landmark but nothing much else. It needs to be mentioned, but for some reason doesn't even get a mention in the state park article. That, to me, would be the more natural redirect. A merge there would allow the township to be described in the context of its best claim to notability (for which it is named). It should also, of course, be listed in Divide County townships, but that is not the most likely best context for the reader. Much more likely they would be seeking out the rock and thus the township associated with it. There is a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue here. You could scrape it through as a keep on GEOLAND, ignoring the GNG fail. But my preference would be merge. As this !vote comes late, if no consensus can form in time around this merge target, my !vote should be interpreted as keep with no prejudice against immediately opening a merge discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially given the Stories and Histories of Divide County source. While not perfect, we care a lot more about having independent sources for stuff like corporations compared to local history, where the only people who care are are probably going to be at least somewhat involved. The source seems reliable enough and provides enough coverage for us to have an article here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is still very clearly not good enough for GNG though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined count the source towards GNG here. Given the encyclopedic information we can cover here, deletion wouldn't benefit the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as above, it is neither independent nor secondary. WP:GNG says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And goes on to expand that sources should also be secondary. The source does not count towards GNG. Your inclination is to keep the page because we can use this source to say something about the township. Okay, that's fine, taken in conjunction with WP:GEOLAND which provides a different presumption of notability. But let's not confuse the issue by saying that the coverage meets GNG. Nothing here has reached that threshold yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming the article has sufficient sources to meet GNG... but that should probably count towards it. It just... isn't a non-independent source. Living somewhere doesn't mean you can't provide independent coverage. If it was a local business group or the local government, sure, but that isn't the situation. The more iffy thing is whether the source is reliable, given that much of the source was compiled from memory (but that doesn't inherently make something unreliable). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it verifiably passes NGEO then it should be kept, full stop. NGEO is just as valid to establishing notability as is GNG; notice how for GNG, a topic is presumed [notable] – for NGEO, a topic is presumed to be notable – they both can establish notability. If someone can dismiss NGEO solely by saying that the article fails GNG, then there is no point in having NGEO in the first place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NGEO provides a rebuttable presumption of notability, it is not a guarantee and a standalone is certainly not required if it's met. Editors here are arguing the topic is better covered in the park article, per NOPAGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that it makes sense to cram information about the Writing Rock Township coal mines, the East Writing Rock Congregation church and cemetery, schools, elections, and farms into the article about the historical site, which focuses on the petroglyphs. In any case, Sirfurboy has made an excellent case for keeping the article for now and then continuing the merge discussion on the article Talk page if needed. Let's do it. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Exchanger

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

This crypto exchange does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search does not turn up any coverage in reliable sources, only mentions in crypto forums and blogs. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items [22]... And putting in the article that you don't do "know your customer" analysis, nor money laundering tracking is pretty much admitting you're an illegal financial operation, just an fyi. That's not really helping notability, and admitting to illegal activities on the open web might not be the best business decision. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t true. Given that it operates solely on Tor, we cannot definitively say if they are functioning in a country that violates any laws, so claiming money laundering and similar accusations isn’t really valid. If that were the case, decentralized exchanges and privacy coins shouldn’t be listed here either. Additionally, they could be aligned with a BRICS-type framework. KYC (Know Your Customer) is very much a standard used by Western banks and international banks, but not all banks follow these rules.

If we remove this article, then what’s next? Are we going to start asking to remove offshore companies that happen to be shells from history? Removing this article would be like arguing with history. It’s a site that has been up for a long time and documents a significant period in cryptocurrency history and its evolution. Darkwebhistory (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't meet notability requirements, regardless. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. It would be great to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and nom. Andre🚐 05:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure this has any chance of passing WP:V, let alone WP:N. I'm sure it exists, but not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Delete. (As far as I can tell, that press release is for another organisation. I really can't find any RS that mentions it at all) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J062309.94-045624.6

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

Keep ~~Redirect~~ to List of brown dwarfs This article fails WP:NASTRO, I did WP:BEFORE and there are only three academic sources but none have anything notable about this object that would satisfy WP:NASTRO. If anyone finds material for this article please ping me, I'll add it to the article and withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination for this article; it was previously merged and redirected in 2013 in the bundled nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9. The redirect was only recently converted back into a new article. I note this in the interest of completeness (and to emphasize the likely soft deletion ineligibility should that be a factor), but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is one source with significant coverage (already cited in the article), which says that this object is exceptional: Our detection of WISE J062309.94-045624.6 makes this dwarf the coolest and latest-type star observed to produce radio emission. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Rose et al (2023) paper led to some news publication, so it's probably borderline notable at this point.[23] I agree with a weak keep. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Object with recently published relevant study, with a tendency for more scholarly publications in the coming months. Svartner (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner I promise I'm not being a jerk or nitpicky when I ask this but has there been another brown dwarf like this found? I'm just a nerd who also likes space so it's more of my own curiosity then anything. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but when it comes to policy, more sources are needed. However, the case is too promising to be deleted in this AfD, if over time the expectation is not limited to more academic studies, it may be deleted in the future. I think it's hasty at this point. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that makes sense I'll pull the AfD nom since everyone is kind of on the weaker side of keep. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to IMOCA 60. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Transportation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its common practice that every IMOCA 60 has its own page, like the french wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives-C%C5%93ur_4). The importance is given by the Vendée Globe starting only in about two months. Give me some time to bring the article up to speed. V.Glas (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@V.Glas ~~You created the page~~ This page was created in November 2023 and it has had no independent, reliable, secondary sources since then. That seems like plenty of time to find them and "bring the article up to speed." (I don't believe they exist, since I searched for them WP:BEFORE nominating.) As for your argument that "it's common practice," that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that does not rely on any actual guidelines, and we follow English Wikipedia guidelines here. What is your policy-based reason for keeping this article? One alternative, if you believe sources will be available after the Vendee Globe, is to draftify this article, which is the appropriate place for it if you're still working on finding sources. Let me know what you think. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not create the page. That was @Yachty4000. If you are looking for sources or notability, take the French article as reference. I already translated and added some parts. V.Glas (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my misstatement and have struck it above. Regardless there is now a week for sufficient sources to be identified. As I said, I didn’t find any that fit the bill (and I looked in French as well). But if you find some and they do meet the standards of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 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) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: V.Glas has added several sources. Five of them are to the IMOCA website and thus not independent. Three ([24], [25], [26]) are WP:INTERVIEWS with the boat's skipper and thus primary sources. One ([27]) is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in an article about several boats being built for the Vendee Globe. One ([28]) appears to be a publicity piece. Two ([29], [30]) do not mention the Initiative Coeur 4 at all. One ([31]) appears to be self-published. And finally, one ([32]) is a brief mention amid WP:ROUTINE race coverage. In short, I still don't see any SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Further input would be of assistance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the French version of this article has a lot of sources and material, could this be a helpful direction to take this article? If not redirecting would be fine. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Halliday

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

Subject of article is not notable, sources cited show that they were sent to jail for a contempt of court charge and a misdemeanor picketing charge. Article is very WP:PROMO and not WP:NPOV. I did WP:BEFORE and he mentioned briefly in a three books one of them is a published that only publishes material on veganism and animal rights. The mentions were not in-depth from what I could tell. There is a section about his writing but none of the material would qualify under WP:NAUTHOR Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also article was PRODed so that's why I brought it here to AfD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Animal, Crime, Politics, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering bringing this article to AfD for the same reasons. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is shocking how much of this article is cited to self-published and social media sources like Tumblr, Myspace, Facebook, etc. A cursory search on Google Scholar doesn't show any significant coverage in reliable sources, with most mentions being passing references in lists of sentences against animal rights and environmentalist activists. Perhaps there's a redirect target, but I'm not seeing one right now. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnimalRightsArchivist, can you share the sources here that you mentioned in User talk:Explicit#Request to Reconsider the Deletion of the Jordan Halliday Wikipedia Article? Editors will be looking for the three best reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the subject in depth, i.e., academic and professional journalist sources, no blogs, user-generated content. czar 12:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnimalRightsArchivist if you think there are some materials that are offline that would be helpful we could also send this article to draft which would give you some time to gather everything needed. For example I use the Internet Archive for a lot of sourcing but it's been offline for a few days, but you also might know of sources in magazines or books that aren't available online. I know that some of the books I noticed his name in were from really small presses so they might not have everything scanned online. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking us together @Czar. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons articulated by Grnrchst. The sourcing is almost entirely from blogs and social media. There are a couple of local news stories, but they basically all concern news about his sentencing. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to PBS Wisconsin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Place (TV Series)

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

Completely unsourced. Tried Googling for sources, and got a bunch of official PBS websites (that is, they weren't third-party sources). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Health and fitness, Education, Science, Economics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PBS Wisconsin. If that article were done correctly, it would have a "Local programming" header which would mention this program and any other station output. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative, given the miscapitalized disambiguator, is an entry at the disambiguation page University Place. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PBS Wisconsin: Not independently notable. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PBS Wisconsin (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only source I can find that provides significant coverage of University Place:
1. Ziff, Deborah (2008-07-28). "WPT's new stations to get more viewers. Charter will add the four public broadcasting digital stations in August" (pages 1 and 2). Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-10-14. Retrieved 2024-10-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It's 11 a.m. on a weekday, and that means it's time for "University Place" on Wisconsin Public Television's newly unveiled station, the Wisconsin Channel. For two hours a day, the station airs mostly local university lectures on topics ranging from Fur Trade 101 to Why We Age. ... He acknowledges that not everyone will be interested in the ancient glacial lakes of Wisconsin and other lecture topics on "University Place." ... More than 75 lectures have been taped for "University Place," mostly from UW-Madison, but also from Harvard Medical School, the University of California, Santa Barbara and other schools. WPT employees identify lectures they hope will be of general interest and plan to record lectures from colleges throughout the state.Wisconsin Public Television coordinates with stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania to create content for "University Place.""
Cunard (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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