Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

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

George Street tram stop

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

Train stations are not automatically notable and need to meet WP:GNG. This individual tram stop which is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop does not meet WP:GNG. Both sources are primary and do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky one. I agree that "a raised piece of concrete" appears not to be notable. However I see from the Tramlink article that every stop on the system has a blue link. Are we proposing to delete all of these? I would also imagine that there are many railway stations (or "halts") around the world which have minimal infrastructure, but nevertheless have their own article. To give an example, the tram stops listed in List of Manx Electric Railway stations each have their own article, despite having minimal infrastructure and much less traffic than the Croydon Tramlink (and the Manx rolling stock being more flimsy than that in Croydon). Ehrenkater (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. If you find other non-notable articles, please nominate them for deletion. Please assess this AfD on its own merits. If this AfD results in a consensus to delete/redirect then we can do that for other non-notable Croydon stops. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manx Electric Railway has been around a century longer than Tramlink, so there are plenty of books about the history of the system that are used as sources in the articles about it. I suspect it'll take a few more decades for Tramlink to be in that situation... Adam Sampson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was clear consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop that notability of these stops should be discussed as a set, not by individual AfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#RfC: Notability and Tramlink stops that AfDs for individual stops were not a good use of editor time. I recommend you withdraw this AfD and work with editors from those past discussions to reach a conclusion about which (if any) articles should go to AfD, and batch them accordingly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely extraordinary. No attempt to address the notability of this stop. We've been told by several editors from this topic area that some tram stops are notable and others are not. So there's no point taking a set to AfD. Now you're saying we can't take individual tram stops to AfD, either. Isn't that convenient? AusLondonder (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some stops being clearly notable does not mean you can't take others to AfD. All I am requesting is that you discuss with other editors to figure out which subset of the stops would make a reasonable AfD bundle(s), and then take that bundle(s) to AfD. For example, Church Street tram stop, Centrale tram stop, and Reeves Corner tram stop are all extremely similar to George Street tram stop. It would make far more sense to discuss their notability at the same time rather than in multiple AfDs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And on what grounds does that lead to arguing for keep as you have done? AusLondonder (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary-sourced literal wide spot in the road with no evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. Completionism does not and cannot justify keeping this nor forcing an all-or-nothing process that cannot produce consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a discussion about how best to cover articles about stops on Croydon Tramlink, which stops are notable enough for articles (individually or as part of e.g. a mainline station articles), and where and how to merge the content about those that are not individually notable. Under no circumstance though is there a justification for deletion of any of these titles - those that are not individually notable should be (after the aforementioned discussion) merged and redirected not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be voting for Merge or Redirect (and you can do so with the stated intent of pending the result of that other discussion), not vote Keep without actually presenting a Keep argument for notability of the subject matter. Silver seren^C 23:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Hopefully closing admin will disregard keep votes without valid rationale. The clear community-wide consensus is that rail infrastructure must meet GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I should not be !voting for something different to what I believe to be the best outcome for readers of the encyclopaedia: That keeping these articles in their present state until the outcome of such a discussion concludes how best to present information on this set of closely related subjects. Recommending merge or redirect implies a preference for redirection or merging somewhere now and then possibly demerged or merged elsewhere after the discussion concludes. That would be significantly more disruptive for everyone, possibly more work for editors, and bring no benefits to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any indication of notability from available sources. I hope someone can present some at some point, but none are evident currently. The closer should remember that AfD discussions are about determining notability of a subject matter and not about discussions of Merging or Redirecting (though those can be outcomes of AfD discussions). Thus, any Keep votes that don't make an actual argument of notability on policy grounds needs be disregarded when determining the outcome of the AfD. Silver seren^C 23:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It's a plausible search term so deletion should be off the table and I'm disappointed to see this here rather than a broader discussion about these articles as a group. Nonetheless, although the system is clearly notable and some stops on it may be, the majority do not appear to have significant third-party coverage so a list of stops is preferable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my comment. Based on the discussion with the nominator below, it is clear that this is a bad-faith nomination in an attempt to "win" an argument elsewhere and not one genuinely concerned with assessing the notability (or otherwise) of the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I'm really surprised and disappointed by you casting aspersions on me. You are absolutely wrong. I have no objection to a broader discussion although I'm frankly not convinced the London transport project is the best place for an unbiased review. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed a lot of good faith in the discussion at WT:N and the early stages of this discussion because I thought we were working towards a shared goal, assessing the notability of these tram stops and deciding what to do with the articles if the GNG is not met—not getting rid of them by whatever means necessary, including nominating an article that will at worst be merged or redirected at Articles for Deletion. The London Transport project seems like the best place to find editors who may have sources. So far, none containing significant coverage of individual stops have been found so the discussion is moving on to the mechanics of redirecting, so the result is likely to be more-or-less the same but without wasting everyone's time with 30-something AfDs and after looking for sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the broader system. Does not appear notable on its own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Coverage wise there is some from this book about the tram system Croydon Tramlink.

It is likely not enough for straight GNG pass, but I'm voting keeping mainly as I agree with the other keep voters that removing a single article with no plans on how to deal with the rest of the system causes more problems than it solves, as it ends up no one does the work of cleaning up the other articles and we have a navigational & consistency gap. I note that a bundled AfD does not have to be a "review every station or do nothing", it is perfectly fine to evaluate sections of the system at a time (looking at the map, one good starting "set" could be the stations from Lloyd Park to New Addington). If I was voting on a bundled AfD I would of voted to make a listicle instead of keeping.

That aside, if one of the delete !voters volunteers to complete the job of evaluating the rest of the stations and making changes as needed then feel free to automatically convert my vote to Merge to List of Tramlink stops (with redirect to Tramlink as interm target) Jumpytoo Talk 01:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have to start somewhere. We can't keep saying "yes, I know it fails every notability requirement but keep because we have hundreds of other articles that also fail those requirements". That's not a serious argument. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder so let's have a discussion about the articles as a group. I agree with you that it's likely we'll end up merging/redurecting the majority of them but surely it makes more sense to do it from one central discussion than relitigating the same question 39 times? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a group nomination because those often become unmanageable disasters. I was also keeping in mind that at Wikipedia talk:Notability several editors have claimed that some tram stops may be notable and that each team stop should be assessed individually. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like circular reasoning to me (something you've been quick to accuse others of), and a deliberate misrepresentation of what has actually been said at WT:N. That's very disappointing. I was hoping for a good-faith discussion that would critically evaluate these articles and that the result would be apparent from that evaluation, not for a discussion where one editor tries to force through their preferred decision based on a subjective opinion of importance. I guess I'll go and start that discussion somewhere and follow it where it leads; I want no further part of this AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so angry? I was literally told that some tram stops are notable and others are not, which I accepted in good faith. From the discussion at WT:N Tram stops are more complicated than railway stations - some are notable, some aren't and they need to be assessed individually. These comments were explicitly agreed with by several editors. How on earth am I misrepresenting that? AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid argument, per WP:OSE: It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point and In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. If you want to pierce the argument I am currently making, there needs to at the very least a promise to do such evaluation to show that what OSE allows is not the case. Jumpytoo Talk 17:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is an essay. It has exactly zero policy weight in any deletion discussion. Especially when you ignore the entire rest of the OSE section to cherry-pick something that has little relevance to what is being discussed. We are explicitly not discussing something that has clear notability for the vast majority of members. That is specifically something that has not been showcased or presented in any manner. In fact, the notability of really any tram stop has not been presented, let alone the majority of them. Silver seren^C 18:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This AfD is for this particular topic's suitability as a standalone. Local consensuses at wikiprojects do not override P&Gs, and the broader question of "how to treat the Croydon Tramlink stops" is totally irrelevant to whether this stop meets notability guidelines. Any pseudo-navigational purpose of this article is fulfilled with a redirect to Tramlink#Routes so it doesn't even sound like a "discussion" about Croydon Tramlink stops would offer a single reason to retain any of these articles anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note a discussion about the notability of Croydon tramlink stops in general and how and where any determined not to be individually notable should be covered is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added some additional information to the article, including its service patterns and transport connections to bring it in line with the content of other Tramlink stops and to make it more notable as a single article. Aaroncrudge (talk) 08:39, 9 October (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain in what way you think the addition of even more primary-sourced and unsourced information addresses the nomination issue that this article still has none of the in-depth secondary sourcing required for WP:GNG-based notability? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you are referring to as none of the content I have added is unsourced and the primary sourced content meets all WP:PRIMARYCARE guidance. I am not suggesting that the article meets notabilty guidelines, simply stating that I have attempted to make it more notable. There is still clearly work to do and thats absolutely fine to state that but criticising the contributions of users attemping to improve the article is counterproductive. Aaroncrudge (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not suggesting the article meets notability guidelines, why have you 'voted' keep? AusLondonder (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am working to add content and improve the quality of the article so that it meets notabilty guidelines. I can't do that if it's deleted. Aaroncrudge (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But...the content you're adding does nothing toward that goal? Article quality is irrelevant if the topic doesn't meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop is harsh and uncollaborative. Cremastra (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry the feelings of the poor defenseless tram stop were so hurt by calling it what it is. But perhaps considering things a little more impersonally would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Available sources do not prove notability for this individual tram stop, so a separate article is not needed - hence I'm not recommending keep. A redirect to a List of Tramlink stops article would be my preferred solution but if and until one is created, a redirect to the line is a valid AtD. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see the 2023 RfC as preventing this AfD from continuing. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop had less participation than this AfD already has, so it can certainly not be used as precedent-setting to overrule this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romansh exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this specific list wiki-notable? Which reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic of Romansch exonyms? I'm not aware of any policy that would presume automatic notability for lists of exonyms. There have been attempts to group exonym articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus (and some of the articles, such as Chinese exonyms, seem to be notable, due to having been discussed in sources). So, I couldn't have bundled many nominations together, and instead opted for an individual approach. Admittedly, I hadn't considered posting on Talk:Endonym and exonym, fair enough. And I also could've explained my approach, and the reasons for it, in the nominations. toweli (talk) 09:40, 3 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!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 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!} 23:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Econofoods

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as a notable-enough regional Iowa supermarket. Some book sources coming up and listings in Plunkett's food industry and retail almanacs, and the Hoover's Handbook of American Business, Handbook of NASDAQ stocks,. Combined with a few of the local news stories about store closings and acquisitions I think this does pass WP:GNG.[1][2] Andre🚐 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. ^Wiinter_U 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand College of Business

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

Cannot find any independent secondary coverage to satisfy NCORP. Current refs are not independent or are promotional. Article was created by an SPA. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to recent de-prodding.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wings

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

Promo UPE article. Refs are paid for PR, non-bylined content and promo articles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little coverage in The Source [3] and quite a bit about his involvement in a failed Burna Boy concert in South Africa, although the latter could be viewed as WP:1E, plus the LA Weekly coverage. It seems marginal, and the article needs a lot of work. But one or two more sources could save it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, there is decent coverage and this can be improved not deleted. Gwatakwata (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwatakwata:@Colapeninsula: Can you give me two other sources that prove he is notable. The LA Weekly coverage is a good WP:SECONDARY but it is single reference and is likely only seen a WP:OR. WP:BLP which states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" means must have good sources. Another two and I close this. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 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!} 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question It looks to me like the TimesLive and Sunday World articles are substantial. From what I can learn on the sites themselves, both seem to have suitable stature in their markets. User:scope_creep, do you have information that would lead us to conclude that these are not reliable sources? Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TimesLive one looks like an interview containing several quotes by him, copied verbatim, which make the majority of the article along with an image supplied by him. The Sundayworld is another similar type of thing. They have use him image from instagram. It may better but I don't know, hence this Afd. They seem particularly independent. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatantly promotional text, full of advertorials, such as this, this, or this, pretending to be sources. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics since a simple incision seems not to be enough. We have & found:

Simple, typical, unexceptional announcements of a new hip hop release in a hip hop website, such as this in The Source, e.g. "new single and album are available on all digital streaming platforms. Check out latest single below," etc; the LA Weekly reproducing here a press release put together by our subject's PR; TshisAlive, the promotional branch of the South African Sunday Times putting out advertorials about every little thing concerning their artist, e.g. here about a beef with Ticketpro, here about philanthropy plans, etc; a lot of items about the one truly notable event in our subject's career, i.e. the "Burna Boy debacle," e.g. here, all doused by a strong sprinkle of promotion; assorted dead links; and that's it. Try as we graciously might, there is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Half-Life

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

Not verifiable and doesn't appear notable. Unsure if it is different from Gamespy's other Planet Network websites, maybe merge to GameSpy. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources found here, here, here and here. Due to the age of the site, they all appear to be entirely WP:OFFLINE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good searching, although these look like web directory entries. IgelRM (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another source [4]McYeee (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this is from Kyle Orland's blog. I don't think commenting on the skeptical article is significant coverage of the website. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional sources: Strana Igr: [5], PC PowerPlay: [6], PC Accelerator: [7]. I think there's enough of these write-ups now that the article passes GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source analysis of newly found ones to see if they meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week to see if there's agreement or dissent to Mika1h's proposed sources meeting notability standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, The Village Voice, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:53, 27 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) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't access ProQuest, but I'll assume those are decent coverages. My library card might allow me access, I might just boot up their website and look... Otherwise, mentioned here [8], but that's not enough for notability. There's some coverage in Gscholar linked in the deletion template, but these are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, if you log in to Wikipedia Library first, then launch ProQuest from that page, you should have the same access. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:55, 4 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, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flow (software)

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: only the ComputerWorld article meets in-depth coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Regrettably not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous prod/deprod. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee lens investing

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A vague term invented by a company for something that it does. The references have a bit on the company (most of them just passing along self-published material) and the leader, but there is no coverage much less the required in-depth coverage on what this actual is. As result the article is just vague arm waving and related platitude about refugees without even cover covering the putative topic North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats your plan to get it delete. There is quite heavy block of academic references on it. I reviwed it and thought the chances of deletion were slim. scope_creep^Talk 20:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism was coined by John Kluge Jr. and Tim Docking of the Refugee Investment Network in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article and it does not appear to have gotten independent, reliable source coverage since. The Rockefeller Foundation report was coauthored by Kluge and co-published by his organization. A World Bank report on the topic was peer-reviewed by Tim Docking (see page 6), which calls its independence into question. The Bloomberg piece (viewed via the WP Library) and the EuroMoney article are WP:INTERVIEWs and thus not independent. The Forbes piece is a "Forbes contributor" source and thus unreliable. The citation to the Robin Wilson book appears to be an attempt at WP:SYNTH as the source does not mention refugee lens investing, Kluge, or the RIN at all. The MarketLinks blog post is essentially a primary source, since it is published by the host of an event that highlighted the Refugee Investment Network on a panel. If anyone turns up other coverage, happy to reconsider my assessment, just ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 4 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, Daniel (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Securities Lending

AfDs for this article:

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

Not able to find anything on 2i Media, GSL, Jon Hewson and Mark Latham apart from PR articles Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Finance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Securities Lending.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugʻbek Shodibekov

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

Not notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:SINGER. An earlier version of the article falsely claimed that he has received the State Nihol Award. It's not a state award, nor does the cited (and unreliable) source mention anything about any award. Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry entirely lack WP:RELIABILITY.

Kun: an interview with the subject of the entry.
Malumot: a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
Savol-javob: another Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
Daryo: another interview with the subject of the article.
Uzmedia: a highly unreliable entertainment blog.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ^talk 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Uzbekistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interviews are primary sources and, on their own, can’t make someone notable. Blogs are completely unreliable as user-generated content. The article only cites these two types of sources. I was also unable to find any WP:SIGCOV sources. GrabUp - Talk 12:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. While the 'delete's make a very strong case, looking for further input from other editors to either confirm this as a consensus or dispute it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chughtai Lab

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

Fails WP:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a very prominent lab within Pakistan. I think it should be tagged for a rewrite or something like that. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prominence or popularity doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Gheus (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the analysis of those three references:

1. It is about a corporate partnership, marked as "BR Web Desk", no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV.

2. Not directly about the company, but about a vaccine. Full of quotes, Chughtai said this and that.

3. Again, MOU, a press release style article with no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems notable enough as the lab was also embroiled in a sort of a political controversy (see: Dawn). Mister Banker (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the deletion argument is the more compelling, but hasn't had much support outside the nominator. Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The lab is prominent, but we rely on NORG to determine which articles to keep, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dink (software company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of independent sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route X22

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

Non-notable bus route with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two sources currently in the article are a listing of 15 bus routes with no details, and the timetable from the operator. A BEFORE search finds no additional coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Vaughn

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

Seems to have only released singles so far. The sources are a bit questionable as well. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:44, 11 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: [9], 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. [10]) and interviews with her (e.g. [11], [12]) 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 [[13]] DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:43, 11 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]

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]

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 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]
Delete - Searches come up with some passing mentions, including a couple of mentions in books by people educated there ([14] and [15]). These certainly do not meet SIGCOV. There is very little else. Almost no newspaper coverage. Passing mention in a few papers, such as [16], 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 [17] 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]

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]

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.[18]. 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]

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 [19]. 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]

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[20][21], 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [22], 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]

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]

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 [23] – 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]

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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ([24] [25] [26] [27]). 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
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. 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]

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 [28]... 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]

WISEPA J062309.94-045624.6

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

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.[29] I agree with a weak keep. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 12 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 ([30], [31], [32]) are WP:INTERVIEWS with the boat's skipper and thus primary sources. One ([33]) is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in an article about several boats being built for the Vendee Globe. One ([34]) appears to be a publicity piece. Two ([35], [36]) do not mention the Initiative Coeur 4 at all. One ([37]) appears to be self-published. And finally, one ([38]) 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]

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]

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]