Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< September 26 September 28 >

Purge server cache

Girls' Hostel

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on whether or not this subject meets WP:NFILM. Also, since a Redirect was brought up, please supply a link to the suggested target article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's difficult to find sources for something that appeared in 1962 and didn't endure. There was a TV show with the same name which seems to be quite popular and that is what pops up in searches. I did find that a CD had be made of the music but that's all. Lamona (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1962: Although this film doesn't meet WP:NFILM, this coverage is small but showed that the film may be historical as well as added to the career of Nalini Jaywant, hence redirect to List of Hindi films of 1962 instead of deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying also to Liz. (I would prefer a Keep but) if a Redirect is chosen, the target suggested by SafariScribe clearly makes sense; however, I would tend to think that regarding a film a redirect to the director should always be favoured when it is possible, as it is closer to the subject than a more general list (in the present case, Ravindra_Dave#Hindi_cinema. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus seen here. I'm not sure that a few more days will resolve this, along with the competing suggestions for a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfree

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

As a fan of the original 151 Pokemon and someone who enjoyed Bye Bye, Butterfree myself, I went over the sources carefully as I really want this to be notable. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem that way at all and it doesn't feel like the article's recreation was justified. Arguably its best source is from CBR, which is considered "unreliable" post 2016. Everything else is pretty trivial, about the episode rather than the Pokemon itself, or from large general lists of Pokemon which don't indicate that particular one is uniquely notable. Even with the paper comparing bug Pokemon to real-world insects, I am not convinced GNG is passed here. I realize I may get hit with the "you nominated it the day it was recreated" argument, but the article did not have an "under construction" banner so I must assume that the creator believes it is in a finished state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being about the episode does not mean that notability cannot be gleaned for Butterfree from the discussion of the episode and commentary on Butterfree's role in it. The Gamer discusses Ash's relationship with Butterfree and what its return could symbolize, and simply being a part of a greater article does not mean that the discussion of the urban legend surrounding it and Venonat is not a demonstration of notability (per WP:GNG). The fact that the episode is a large part of why people talk about Butterfree so much is immaterial to the fact that they do. There is also commentary on Butterfree's role in the game as an early evolver, as was it the subject of commentary as being Ash's first Pokémon caught. I also added this article, which discusses extensively Butterfree's relationship with Ash in the anime. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Butterfree per nom - Most of the sources are game guides, extremely trivial mentions, and content-farm style "Top Ten" lists. The few that look half-way decent are just reviews/summaries of a handful of specific episodes of the anime that featured Ash's Butterfree, with no real discussion about the actual fictional species, and even those are not from the most reliable of sources. I also have to mention that there looks to be quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. I already mentioned the trivial nature of the coverage of Butterfree in a lot of the included references, but some of these are literally one sentence mentions of that Pokemon and some, such as the first and fourth ones currently listed, don't mention Butterfree at all. Overall, I am not seeing anything to justify this specific Pokemon being split out into an independent article, and should be Redirected to its section at the Gen I Pokemon list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to make the point that the sources you're referring to as not mentioning Butterfree are only used to verify basic information about what a Pokémon is, how they work, and how the games work. Not mentioning Butterfree does not make them not useful for this article, and the same citations are used on Raichu, a featured article. As far as top 10 lists go, there is nothing to suggest that merely being in a top 10 list makes coverage less significant. The Gamer, Crunchyroll, and the entomologist all provide significant coverage on the subject, even if Butterfree is not the main subject of their respective works. In the latter's case, they may be analyzing the Bug type as a whole, but they do not give each Pokémon equal weight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, sources not mentioning the subject can be useful for an article, but they also do nothing to help establish any notability for the subject, which is the issue at stake here. Its the sheer number of references being used here that either don't mention Buterfree or have a one-sentence namedrop that gives the impression of a WP:REFBOMB. As far as "Top Ten" style lists go, putting aside the fact that these are often from content farms that are generally not considered reliable sources, they also generally do not actually contain significant coverage. Take the IGN list included here, for example - its three sentences long, and its "coverage" of Butterfree is simply "Bye Bye Butterfree was sad", which is not significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? No one claimed those sources showed notability, they're there to verify facts, how is this refbombing in any capacity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that is the first two points of the WP:REFBOMB essay - an overkill of citations that briefly namecheck the subject without actually being about the subject, and citations that don't mention the subject and are presented to verify a fact that is not related to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that WP:REFBOMB is just an essay, not a policy - I am simply using it to demonstrate the larger issue - the fact that so many trivial citations are needed to be used to try to provide references for the article shows the lack of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow Buttefree to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rorshacma: Something I feel needs clarification, by the "first and fourth one", are you talking about the references in the article itself or the reception section? Because references 1 and 4 are part of the "copypasta" used in these articles to establish terminology and context to the reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kung Fu Man:Yeah, I'm talking about the "copypasta" part that just has the general overview of what a Pokémon is. Which, yeah, I understand is needed for context, but still means about 7 of the citations in this article are not about the subject of the article, which combined with the fact that another 8 are of the "single word mentions" variety means that the article has a lot of citations - but more than half are not actually on the subject of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rorshacma: That doesn't constitute a refbomb in this case though, that's a section agreed upon after multiple discussions at WT:VGCHAR to help readers understand these articles, and survived the FAC process just fine. Holding them against an article like this is realistically pretty unfair, as refbombing revolves around unnecessary sources in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. I apologize, as I did not mean it to be a slight against the editors of the article or to imply any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It was mainly just to preempt the argument I occasionally see pop up in AFDs where someone will cite the number of references in an article as evidence of notability, without examining the amount of coverage of the topic in those references. It was basically just me saying "despite the number of sources present, the coverage of the subject within a lot of them is not significant". I'll try to use better wording in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an aside, is there any reason why CBR is unreliable in a way that other Valnet sources are not? I believe that general consensus is that being owned by Valnet is not disqualifying, and the article used here was published prior to CBR's layoffs and use of AI. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30#Comic Book Resources, it seems to be due to a significant degradation of content compared to their old self, and the fact they didn't cover video game subjects until after Valnet bought them, which, additionally, was when their old staff practically all left the moment Valnet bought them. Admittedly I do feel I disagree in its complete unreliability, since it's about equal in terms of quality to the usual Game Rant/Screen Rant, but that was the rationale provided during its initial discussion. I feel if its status should be debated, another discussion at the Sources page would be warranted, but that is likely outside the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think a key thing being missed here is the wording "generally" vs strictly unreliable. We've had discussions regarding Valnet afterward that are visible in the archives on the subject of editorial pieces, where the concerns with CBR were strictly about churnalism and AI usage accusations (the latter of which Valnet confirmed they have no plans to use). The article cited here however is an editorial opinion piece, and should be fine for usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I would appreciate stronger sourcing, I feel what's here shows some potential avenues of discussion that help illustrate the character's notability. In the anime's regard, its character arc and the impact it had on viewers is definitely commented on frequently even years after its exit from the show. There's a dissertation here, which while brief actually covers how reactions to the anime helped affect the games itself later on. There's also discussion here on how Butterfree leaving continues a theme of loss and acceptance for children to understand. Additionally there is some design commentary, and while I'd like that to be stronger (then again, let's be real it's a butterfly), the avenue of its evolution being inconsistent and how fans have attempted to rationalize such and the importance of such rationalization is talked about in a published paper here. Now this is just from a cursory glance online thus far, but with how quickly I found these in scholarly works I feel there's enough to this subject to warrant it as a stand alone, it's just a bit in the rough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I can't access one of them, the others you posted are only 1-2 sentences long when talking about Butterfree, so it kinda backs up the extremely trivial mention/REFBOMB idea here. This feels like it's going into a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument unless you can outright demonstrate several reliable, significant sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More I'm suggesting one could build a "death by 1000 cuts" approach of using the smaller sources providing unique thoughts on a matter observations to support bigger sources in the article, which we've seen in the past can work. It's a weaker argument I'll admit, but it's why I prefaced this with a weak keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the "Weak" part after the recent addition and work on the article and some contemplation. Additionally I feel the "refbomb" argument is a misnomer, as it's being used apparently against the references in the article as a whole instead of the reception section, and the sources cited there are providing some commentary as to why the character matters particularly due to its anime characterization which is still valid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added this source to the reception (and used it to reduce the number of citations by replacing a source for this in the Appearances section). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst I wish there was more here on the species, I think the article does enough to help the subject pass GNG with the mentions of the anime. From the way I read it and see the sources in the reception, I believe the mentions of Bye Bye Butterfree justifies the importance of the Butterfree character in the anime, as well as states why the species is popular in the first place, not strictly about the episode itself. CaptainGalaxy 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is a WP:REFBOMB circumstance fuelled by mere mentions. This hasn't achieved WP:SIGCOV and can be written up in another more notable article. Jontesta (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple articles that go into detail on Butterfree, not merely the episode. Notably, the IGN source, Crunchyroll source, and Sports Illustrated source, on top of the entomological sigcov clearly passes WP:THREE. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Been on the fence about this one the past few days, but I believe this just squeaks past notability. If it were just the Bye Bye Butterfree refs I'd have considered shifting topic focus (And if this discussion does end in a merge/redirect, I would suggest seeing if using this content for that end is viable) but the refs on the urban legend are surprisingly good and do help show there is discussion among players about Butterfree in multiple aspects. While the refs could be stronger, I do believe that this article has just enough to justify a split-out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting is divided between editors arguing for a Keep and those advocating a Redirection. A source analysis might help resolve the difference of opinion whether or not they are sufficient to keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şarkı

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

Hard to search for sources as I am not a native speaker and the word means “song”. Seems unlikely to be notable but instead of deleting could perhaps be merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are located discussing the specific song form, then a merge could be sensible. As is, however, I think either a redirect to fasıl or the definition on Wiktionary (via {{wiktred}}) would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although it is a stub, the article is about a specific musical form, which is notable on its own. [1] A potential merge would be an editorial dicussion, not an AfD discussion.
TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roberto G. Carbone

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

Article about a person that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first source is a database result as well as unverifiable. The second sources was like that too. The third one, embt.org, is solely a tribute to another man called "Alberto", and has nothing to do with this article. Source 5 is undoubtedly unreliable, and source 6 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (because it's written by him, I would call it a WP:SELFPUB. ORCID isn't needful especially when citing as a biographical information. I don't know much about it, but it does appear like a user generated site. I was thinking how we can structure a person's research as academics always write many publications. On this aspect, there are many primary sources; books written by him, and thy are from source 9 to 11. Primary sources may be useful and good, but at the same time doesn't tell us how notable was that research. WA it reviewed by critics, did it appear on TV sites, e.t.c.

The subject's co-authored work, and his first book according to the article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is applicable to the third (there was no mention of the second book). A Fellow of the American College of CHEST Physicians isn't notable per WP:NACADEMIC as the membership including non elected paid position is shown here. Same as the American Heart Association. Additionally, a letter of recommendation on someone doesn't show his notable that person is, and it isn't an award per WP:ANYBIO. This was accepted via AFC by me, for the sale of this AFD. The creator is likely a COI editor who has moved this page twice, and it has been draftified twice too. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORCID's mean nothing with regards to notability. I have one, you can register for one, for free. We were encouraged at one point to register for one with our Wikipedia credentials... Not sure how useful it is, but it doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen-Craig Aristei

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

Procedural nom as AfD1 closer since, while not a G4, it does not seem the issues raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen-Craig Aristei have been addressed sufficiently. Should the consensus remain draftify recommend move protection. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys -- added section regarding SCA's management of Survivor, from a primary source text (Jim Peterik's memoir). Being GM of WB Music, discovering a multi-platinum act, additional management of acts across the late-70s and 80s I think establish his notability. I've cited contemporaneous news stories (Billboard, Cash Box). He's not David Geffen, but so few of us are... Rkg5514 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added information and citation regarding SCA's role in placing a number one hit single with David Cassidy in '73. Trying to alleviate concerns SCA was not associated with any substantial hits... Rkg5514 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. What is your connection with Aristei? Star Mississippi 01:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

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

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of Anasagara". asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right pipeline

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

This article is sourced almost entirely to puff piece 'studies' with no real peer review and opinion articles, with a number of the quoted studies showing the exact opposite of the article's premise. To be blunt, this article is just as much of an opinion piece as the many, many crappy opinion pieces it cribs from. Because the purpose of the article is begging the question, it should either be shitcanned or, at best, heavily reworked to make it quite clear that it's a conspiracy theory. Jtrainor (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: If you don't like the provided sources, discuss them on the relevant talk page. I wish to emphasise Thebiguglyalien's comments. WP:SNOW applies. pluckyporo (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(note that SNOW and WP:speedy keep are different things), though both apply here. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that is possible for a non-admins to close an AfD as keep. See WP:NAC if anyone that's not involved wishes to give it a try. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that this AfD be closed pursuant to WP:SK unless further justification is provided. pluckyporo (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wings

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

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

ÇOMÜ Faculty of Theology

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

We already have page for the university, I don't think this faculty is notable on its own we don't need this page. Moreover the article is unsourced. Pedian4169 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Half-Life

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

Not 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]

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are WP:SPS and paid PR. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist)

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

Entirely promo Amigao (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ochicha

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

I couldn't find sources to verify that this meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 20 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]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While 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]

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]

William Atticus Parker

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

This article should be deleted. The article highlights his film career, but his career is WP:TOOSOON. He has had three uncredited TV roles, one credited TV role 3 years ago, one uncredited movie role, and two credited movie roles. It is premature to give this actor a Wikipedia article. The article does not demonstrate GNG with its sources and it is reasonable to assume someone with such a small filmography could not meet that standard (yet). While his parents are two very talented actors, but notability is not inherited. Mpen320 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his films have received coverage the way that is required. Yes, it is less than Paddington 2, which received less than Citizen Kane..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And 80 minutes is CLEARLY not barely the duration of a feature film (>40 or 58 min), btw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also Wp: Oneevent does NOT apply to artists and their work, whereas Wp:Director DOES apply even if one film is concerned (and here you have 2, anyway). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be able to demonstrate that coverage by providing links in your responses. Also, I assume at this point I am being trolled because Citizen Kane has 134 critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. That is such an unnecessary lie.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious??? I'm telling you Citizen Kane received more coverage than Paddington 2 , which everyone knows, and you feel compelled to check the number of comments on Rotten Tomatoes and call that "trolling" and a lie??? Just educate yourself. I will make no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see now that I 1) got a little too wrapped up in this and 2) should have not read your thing so literally (i.e. more not equalling more reviews, but rather general SIGCOV). If you have any sources, as I said, please provide.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this comment is necessary, given the page history. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I leave this on all pages where I get pushback on deletions.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. An explicit call out to that in the article would help the case of anyone seeking to keep it and makes a much better argument than any of the above. Ultimately, it does not change my vote as I think neither films has gotten the coverage to warrant the director having an article nor do I think the director meeting GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 24 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! 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.рус

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

No good sources, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article literally says, twice, that there is a lack of information for use in writing about it.. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:35, 20 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! 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC Markets

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

I can't see that the article passes WP:NCORP. Almost all of the available sources seem to be paid PR. Those that aren't paid PR lack WP:SIGCOV. In keeping with almost all the sources being paid PR, the article is heavily promotional. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vgbyp (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first SMH article is mostly quoting or attributing statements to IC. This is not WP:SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" as required by WP:NCORP.
The second SMH article mentions them in passing three times. There is no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
I can't access The Australian article, because it's behind a paywall. No comment there.
The Knews article is about IC Markets (EU) Ltd which is registered in Cyprus, so not sure it is completely relevant to this article as this is about an Australian entity. That aside this isn't really SIGCIV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
The ABC article looks fine. I'm not seeing enough here, but then I can't see the Australian article. TarnishedPathtalk 09:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The news about the Cypriot entity is relevant as the current article also provides information about the operations outside Australia. This probably has to be rewritten to clarify the connections between such entities though. Vgbyp (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is of any relevance, there's no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" in that article. TarnishedPathtalk 12:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per @TarnishedPath, none of @Vgbyp's suggested articles actually meet WP:SIGCOV. I will try to have a deeper look but struggled to find anything on my first WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all of the articles suggested by me (except for the Sock puppets and Lifeline ads: Welcome to the wild world of copy trading by SMH) meet WP:SIGCOV. The subject doesn't necessarily need to be the source's main topic if it's covered directly and in detail, which is the case for the four news articles from my list. Vgbyp (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question we need to consider is whether they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, not whether you think they are SIGCOV compliant. We require in-depth WP:NCORP "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND *about* the *company*. The "Fake Margin Calls" articles has no in-depth information about the company other than generic information such as where there HQ is located. Repeating what the company told its customers, quotes, etc, is not "Independent Content". The article about the company getting fined is based on a press release for a total of 7 sentences, none of which provide any in-depth information. The first source about the class action simply regurgitates court documents and is not "Independent Content" and the other source is also not Independent Content as it relies on commentary from the lawfirm filing the case. HighKing++ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone with TWL bundle access, the article in The Australian is available via ProQuest (2912082870), among other means. I will reserve comment on the rest of the issue to a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031, thanks for that. Given what is covered in that article I don't see that it adds to the notability of the company taking into the requirements of WP:NCORP. Simply that the company be addressed directly and in-depth by independent sources. A lot of the article is quotes from either the company or from lawyers investigating initiating a class action against the company (i.e., not independent). What is left over is not the company being addressed directly and in-depth. TarnishedPathtalk 03:36, 23 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! 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum Investments

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

Non-notable corporation. All sources are WP:CORPTRIV about the firm's acquisitions. Also created by a blocked user. — Dan Leonard • talk • contribs 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Empire (Asimov)

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

A non-notable fork of Foundation universe. This one has an abundance of material without proper references making it unsuited for an article and appropriate for deletion. WP:BEFORE indicated that Foundation universe might be a broader topic with some WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 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) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildisvíni

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: I am very much open to keeping this a separate article, but don't have a good graps of how much material there is. Could you perhaps point out some of those secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 12:43, 24 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) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turing switch

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

No significant coverage besides the original author; I could only find trivial mentions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no recognizable notability. --Zac67 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ramos (martial artist)

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

A google search turns up other people named "Pablo Ramos" even when I added the words "martial artist." I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration (game)

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

A copy and paste move from AfC. I didn't PROD for two reasons. One reason, it'll inevitably be reversed by the draft/article creator. Another reason is that it's unreliably sourced, and unfortunately, it's difficult to find sources via a search engine. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete, and recommend that this article is established as a Wikipedia entry. Reasoning includes the following points: A) it is suggested that the article is unreliably sourced. Yet included are 10 citations from a variety of online sources, including the respected BBG (‘board game geek’) and ‘shut up & sit down’, which are themselves referenced in their own Wikipedia articles. Additionally, there is a citation from an original review in the 1970s physically published magazine ‘Games & Puzzles’ B) this compares favourably with other live articles describing other board games listed on the Waddington's Wikipedia entry, such as the one for ‘Formula One’ (which was used as a template to create this article), which only has 6 citations. C) it is also surmised that this subject is not ‘notable’, and yet it is listed on the Waddington’s Wikipedia entry in the list of notable games, along with other board games which have their own articles including ‘formula One’. By implication, if this well researched and cited article is not deemed suitable, it implies that many other articles on similar games need reviewing, along with the notable games list. I consider it a crime against knowledge sharing that such an extensive deletion of articles might be undertaken D) it is stated that few entries are found when googling this subject matter. That is hardly surprising given that the subject of the article is a game that was first published in 1967 and went out of print during the 1970s, way before the internet was created. Still, the game was very popular during its time, selling in the many thousands, as can be judged by observing the number of copies currently for sale on auction sites such as eBay and Amazon, indicating the continued interest. There is also a YouTube review of the game which is only 9 months old, showing the continued interest, implying a Wikipedia entry would be of assistance E) it is incorrectly assessed that this is a computer video game. This mistake leads to the belief that it is not notable, since no modern details exist. Whereas the reality is that this is a traditional board game, recognised by families of the 1970s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartiperson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Anderson (model)

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

All the sourcing on this fashion model is over-the-top promotional material, un-bylined, in sources of questionable independence and reliability (example: "Isaac isn’t just another fashion model; he’s a revolutionary force.") In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources and so I don't see a pass of WP:GNG (much less WP:NMODEL). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez

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

BLP that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars. scope_creepTalk 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the guideline says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about being internationally known (which Mr Venezuela is, being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone about like the oscars (why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my !vote, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your !vote is your !vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you have WP:THREE sources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 21:14, 27 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! 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Theater

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

Fairly new article about a non-notable TV show; created by a new editor. No sources; no formatting. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of Utah's longest running television shows and was very popular. I will be updating sources. As for formatting I will learn and improve the page. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn’t this drafted so that the creator can be helped, instead of having to defend the page at an Afd, which is pretty stressful? Draft, please, if the creator and other users agree, speedy-draft, if such a thing exists. I don’t think that nominating a new page 20 minutes after it was created was the best approach. ’Not ready for Main space”, sure but explain it and draftify is, if the creator is a newcomer/apparently not very experienced contributor, the most constructive path imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatted the page roughly. The claim that it was the longest show in Utah and coverage might be enough to Keep this. If not, redirect and merge (in)to KTVX#History please. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that the Utah TV show in this article is entirely distinct from the Indiana TV show of the same name starring Sammy Terry. The Sammy Terry character was on Indiana TV from 1962 to 1989, occasionally thereafter, continuously makes personal appearances, and still produces web content; Sammy Terry has plenty of reliable sources (print news and at least one book), far beyond what the article currently references. If this article survives, it should be moved to something like Nightmare Theater (Utah), with Nightmare Theater being a redirect to Sammy Terry or a disambiguation page. Vadder (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PensionBee

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

Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker, the mentioned sources are focused on announcing the planned expansion, with minimal independent analysis or critical evaluation of PensionBee's business model, market position, orwhatever. Therefore they lack the depth required for establishing the company's notability --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where those standards appear in WP:SIRS? Both the Guardian and FT articles are by staff writers/editors. Orange sticker (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 20 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) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Tan Seng Teong

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect. I could find no sources for full name or just first and last names. Does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 20 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) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian exonyms

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

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) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romansh exonyms

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

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]

David Barrett (entrepreneur)

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

Coverage mostly about the company; likely fails WP BIO Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Massaquoi

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

There's no independent WP:SIGCOV of this athlete, and thus the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Room

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

Lack of notability. Note that most of the article is effectively unsourced & tagged as such. Surely if there was any true notability for this lump of fancruft a cite or two could have been whipped up. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends' Schools League

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

Lack of notability. Single source is self-published; I could not find anything more solid. TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thibault Leroy Burki

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Tours

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

The article fails WP:NCOMPANY as written and my BEFORE was not helpful. References here are to the company itself, Dansk wiki article is unreferenced. This seems like a local water transportation company operating several small ferries which does not rise to the level of being encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can’t see any independent secondary sources. All those in the article are produced by the company itself, as advertising. Couldn’t spot any on google either, although there could, I suppose, be a language barrier preventing me from seeing them / knowing what to search for. If anyone finds any, that would help. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Barlage

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

I don't think that this victim of refbombing is notable. All refs seem to be run-of -the mill stuff which are fundamenbtally about his jobs rather than about him. TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Ratre

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

The majority of coverage from reliable sources pertains to Mount Everest, while the remaining sources appear unreliable and lack in-depth coverage of the subject. Apart from climbing Mount Everest, she has no notable achievements in mountaineering, and the references related to her Everest climb are in general media rather than WP:CLIMBER media, making this seem like a case of WP:BLP1E. GrabUp - Talk 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Dorneanu

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

Created as a draft which was declined twice and then moved to mainspace by the draft creator, who restored it to mainspace after it had been draftified again. I have cleaned it up pretty extensively and looked for better sources, but I can't see how WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG are met – it looks like a case of an up-and-coming writer who is not yet notable. The single possibly independent source in the article (other than all the sources that don't mention Dorneanu) gives me a warning so I have not assessed that, but one source would not be sufficient in any case. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing. bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bham (film)

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

The sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and according to WP:ICTFSOURCES, The Times of India is not a reliable source. It fails to meet WP:GNG as no multiple critical reviews were cited, and therefore, it also fails WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons in the well-justified nomination. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AC Nagano Parceiro season

[edit]
2014 AC Nagano Parceiro season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Severe lack of sources and content. The only reference is from a primary source. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Creator is globally locked. The page is not great, but is a part of a series of 2014 J3-League club seasons. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it’s part of an entire series of articles for the different Japanese football leagues which not only tracks the competitions year by year, but the teams too. Cutting out a single article in the series seems like it would break up the series for no good reason, when the information itself is super clearly presented, and threaded, in a way I haven’t been able to find anywhere else online.
    In my opinion deleting it would take away something useful. For that reason, I have the page a solid edit tonight. I’ve still got to go ahead and add match report links to each individual game, but I think I at least covered the basics.
    This is such a useful resource that I’m going to make it a mission to pick through all the rest of the articles in the series one by one, and expand / source each of those as well. So it would be really nice if you didn’t delete this one article as I’m doing that…
    Vote to keep. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, new to this, didn’t realise I should have made a * and bolded my keep recommendation until I reread the guide again just now. Mea Culpa.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I’m not voting again, having already voted, but I’ll further explain my reasoning having spent the duration of this deletion discussion attempting to edit the article into compliance.
As the article stood when nominated (by a user who has since quit, after having several of his articles similar to this one likewise nominated for deletion / draftified, but then kept - having made “why are mine deleted when there are articles like these” type arguments), it completely lacked sources and content. The nomination was a fair cop. Since the nomination though, I’ve found and cited several sources, reworked the article in ways which I believe both clearly lay out the season, and that prove there was significant coverage in Reliable, Independent, Secondary sources, with the likelihood of there being more sources out there which I have not yet found (searching in Japanese, my second language, slows things down, but this was the first full season in a newly formed professional competition in a major developed country - the chance of there not being more sources that I just haven’t found yet is basically zero.
I would like to just remind people voting that the criteria is that sources proving notability are likely to exist, not that they are cited in the article as currently written. The appropriate policy is
- “ Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.”
I am not accusing anyone of arguing for deletion in bad faith, I think we are all trying to do what is right here, but I would like to ask anyone leaning towards deletion to ask themselves whether it is in part because they are not interested in the topic of the article, and don’t really consider foreign language sources to count when judging reliability on an English Wikipedia page.
I’m going to keep poking away at the article, searching for more sources, and editing if I have time, and honestly I think that efforts to gradually improve the article is a better way to approach this rather than deletion, but I’ll leave that up to you guys now that I’ve said my piece. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela Solidarity Campaign

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

WP:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does seem to be some decent coverage in books. I'll have a more thorough look later. I'm unsure how and on what basis you can characterise particular media sources as "pro-Venezuelan-government". What media sources which are "anti-Venezuelan-government" and are they acceptable to establish notability? AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the Google Books results, it seems most are either citations of VSC, or trivial mentions. That was my first glance on the search results, but I do not deny there may be books that provide substantial coverage.
    By "pro-Venezuelan-government", I meant, for example, Venezuelanalysis and the Liberation News of Party for Socialism and Liberation or other party-affiliated sites. I do not mean that all "pro-Venezuelan-government" do not establish notability – I expressed myself poorly. I doubt that specific sources establish notability because of their partisanness, with SIRS mandating absolute independence from the subject. I am no expert on notability, I could be mistaken. Janhrach (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the second glance, these mentioned sources do not seem to indicate notability for other, more sound reasons, so my remark about them is kind-of moot. Janhrach (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the breadth of trade union endorsements gives a good indication of the organisation's widespread support within the labour movement (including the largest UK unions). A small sample of reporting over time: Morning Star, Sydney Morning Herald (mention), Vice. WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being significantly supported by the labor movement does not imply notablity; coverage is required. As for the sources you provided, respectively:
    1. Some coverage, independence from the subject unclear, reliability unclear.
    2. The source is not accessible for me because of a paywall.
    3. Very little coverage on VSC.
    —Janhrach (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources that establish its notability. Most sources referenced, such as Venezuelanalysis or Liberation News, are clearly partisan and closely tied to political ideologies that align with the subject, which undermines their neutrality. IMHO, organizations that engage in propaganda should be approached with circumspection, as their primary function is to distort reality to serve specific interests. Wilfredor (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may disagree politically with the group but describing them as engaging in propaganda is rather misleading. Irrespective of that, the motives of an organisation do not negate otherwise credible claims to notability. You have also failed to acknowledge the other sources, including books, providing coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cookeen

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

Appears to be a non-notable cooking ingredient. Google search under 'news' tab didn't turn up anything. Only source is a bare mention in a story about various brands removing hydrogenated vegetable oil. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chughtai Lab

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

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

Syensqo

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

not meet GNG RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It could do with more content and more references, but it is already a notable company within its industry and it should be updated, rather than deleted or redirected to Solvay S.A. (since it is effectively a new company). I found also quite a wide media coverage: Links [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --E.D.G. (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is NOT notability (the popular goto response to many procedures at WP) but that of information governance. Once there is sufficient content for a new article your points and sources by NEXIST would absolutely fly. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 26 September 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]

Dr. Ziauddin Hospitals

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

Fails WP:NCORP - in my before I found articles like this which is clearly marked as "PR" or this which is marked as "press release". This hospital chain is a for-profit business so it has to receive non-routine direct and in-depth coverage per WP:CORPTRIV. The corruption scandal is already on Asim Hussain's article, so I'm okay with a redirect to Asim Hussain or the parent organization, Ziauddin University. Gheus (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Niven

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

Being the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1906 appears to be his only claim to notability. Independent reliable sources are wholly lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grizel Niven

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

One Telegraph interview doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Comeaux

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd agree that simply doing the job alone does not indicate significance, I'd contend that the area of impact and subject matter constitute significance. Comeaux oversees/implements the DEA's policies for over 16 million people throughout Texas. This is particularly significant considering the hot button topic of the opioid epidemic--especially so as fentanyl coming through Texas is a large focus of nationwide policy and debate. For notoriety, the Houston Chronicle (one of the largest newspapers in the nation) did a piece solely focused on him and CBS and NBC affiliates in Houston (KHOU and KPRC respectively) have also featured him for interviews. BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BucketSky10: Interviews don't count toward establishing notability. If you have sources, now is the time to post them here. WP:THREE is the formal standard for establishing. Post three WP:SECONDARY sources to prove its notable. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my three: 1, 2, 3 . I appreciate your time throughout this process. BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks at these references:
Ref 1 [9] This is all taken from an interview.
Ref 2 [10] This is a passing mention.
Ref 3 [11] This is another interview style article.
The problem with these is that the conversation detail comes from Comeaux himself. There is no WP:SECONDARY sources, people talking to other people about Comeaux (secondary) in detail (in-depth) who don't know Comeaux(independence) that prove he is notable. All the currrent reference come from Comeaux himself. He is essentially non-notable. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Niven

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources, so WP:GNG and WP:BIO aren't satisfied. Also, his works don't appear to be held in any major collections or reviewed, so WP:ARTIST is out. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Veniamis

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

Being a wealthy shipping line owner does not in and of itself confer notability. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of sources. Indicative, https://www.tradewindsnews.com/tag/theodore_veniamis, https://maritimes.gr/en/one-hundred-people-2019-32-theodore-veniamis/ Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Peg Slax

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 09:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United Nations Security Council election

[edit]
2028 United Nations Security Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in August via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 United Nations Security Council election

[edit]
2030 United Nations Security Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in July via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 United Nations Security Council election

[edit]
2029 United Nations Security Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in May via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sassa Gurl

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

References are lots and lots of clickbait, non-bylined PR articles, social media driven sites and other PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but you're just being biased by saying that the article is clickbait. Did you check the references? I think you didn’t, because as you can see, all the sources cited are based on facts, and their content supports the statements in the article. Besides, those references come from reputable news media outlets, specifically in the Philippines, and you can search and verify them yourself. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rc ramz: Where did I say the article is clickbait? I never said the article is clickbait. If you mention it again I'm going to have you up WP:ANI for barefaced lying. The references are clickbait. I checked the first block and about 6 in the second block. They are all PR. scope_creepTalk 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reference rather... 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Yan Chuah

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are interviews, profiles and PR. Promo. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binondo (disambiguation)

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

All terms are WP:PARTIAL. In other words, none of these would be confused with "Binondo". HueMan1 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Void Cube

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

Topic is not notable; a web search reveals no reliable sources. Note that since I am new to AfD, I am using this singular article to test the waters as WP:BUNDLE recommends. However I intend to nominate V-Cube 7, V-Cube 6 and several other non-notable puzzles linked in combination puzzle as a group deletion later. It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Insurance

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

Non-notable business, promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 27 September 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 Speedy Keep‎. I"m withdrawing this on the grounds that there has been sustained coverage of the individual after they were sentenced. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPathtalk 10:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bouyeri

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

This is a WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPathtalk 07:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We would either have to merge all of this to Van Gogh's article, where it would be massively undue weight, or create an article on the murder. We do not have this article on the murder; personally I think it makes more sense to structure this as an article on Bouyeri given what the sources focus on (Islamist radicalization). He's of much of a BLP1E as Mark David Chapman (also a killer of a famous person). BLP1E only applies when these three factors all apply:
  • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (applies)
  • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. (does not apply)
  • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented (does not apply)
Only 1 of the three BLP1E factors apply. His role in the murder is very well documented, with virtually all content on it giving extensive focus to his role and his background and what lead him to the role. He has also been sentenced in the murder of a high profile famous person for quite a while so he he is not quite "low profile". The murder was one of the most notorious acts of terrorism in the country. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't complain if the outcome was a article rename and refactor. See Brenton Tarrant for for an individual who has a stronger case to have their own article but who the community decided to merge into an event article. TarnishedPathtalk 09:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case,
1) an event article already existed
2) the crime was more recent, which has different concerns
3) that was a new article someone had just made, not the status quo, it only briefly existed
4) the victims were not individually famous as Van Gogh was
5) the article was very bad and contained nothing the main page didn't it was just a content fork
I think the case for him having an article was actually much worse. None of the content in that article was merged (because it was a bad content fork) it was just wholesale deleted. I'm not 100% opposed to it being converted into an event article, but it would be writing a whole new article and that is an editorial decision that should not have gone to AfD because as is we have nowhere to put this information; I am entirely opposed to deleting this or merging it into Van Gogh's article. I also think, given what the sources choose to focus on, it makes more sense for now to keep it how it is, so an event article would not be my preference. To make it an event article someone would have to do the work to do that, or it will end up getting backdoor deleted and redirected to Van Gogh (as regularly happens) which will make the encyclopedia worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, here are the WP:CRIMINAL criteria:
"For perpetrators,
The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or
The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
Both of these are true in Bouyeri's case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw this as a Speedy Keep as it is clear there has been sustained coverage after his sentencing. I'll start a discussion on the article talk to gauge if there is any appetite for an article move. TarnishedPathtalk 10:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bending the Rules

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

Reviews from reliable sources appear to be nonexistent for this movie, showing it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Kenya, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG, only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield High School (Massachusetts)

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG, run of the mill high school, a search for sources turned up a mix of primary sources, database entries or mentions. Since the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not automatically notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviewing the article history the original prod was back in 2007 and the page was deleted. As the prod was back in 2007, I don't think it should count against a soft deletion outcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nearly everything I have found is WP:ROUTINE, but this source [12] mentions a Greenfield High School for young ladies. See page 256. Is this the same establishment? If so it appears to have a considerable history that bears further searching. If this school is mucj more modern, though, I doubt it is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kagarama

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

This possibly passes WP:NGEO but would be far better servied merged inside Kicukiro District due to lack of sourcing or possibility to expand prose here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOLFRAM

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

Non-notable, promotional page about Australian DJ. Page created by paid editor (WP:COI has been appropriately declared), so page needs to well meet notability criteria, but in my view falls well short of WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO. Claim to fame was a decade ago so if notability was supposedly achieved, WP:RSs should have been visible by now. Cabrils (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thank you for your feedback. I have updated the page to reflect his current status as a pivotal figure in the fashion and electronic music space, citing the most prestigious outlets having published recent pieces on him in the last 2 years- including Vogue Magazine, INDIE Mag, and Sleek Magazine, and included his collaboration with renowned brand ZALANDO on their campaign last year. These are all cited and included in the most recent edits. In the sources I have added, it is adequate that WP:RSs is visible and the requirements are satisfied. Please let me know if you have any additional feedback Natlaur (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read about WP:COIRESPONSE. – The Grid (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Little to no coverage in RS for this person. I don't find any as well. German Vogue is probably the best one, rest are interviews or primary sourcing. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, many of this artist’s coverage is in German. As I mentioned above, I respectfully believe the sources do in fact meet the criteria for RS. Monocle, Vogue, INDIE magazine, and Interview are all highly reputable and reliable sources that establish noteworthiness, especially within the artist’s existing niche- as well as extremely high profile campaigns for ZALANDO. I would kindly request that you reconsider the delete vote, or perhaps share any requirements that in your eyes satisfy the criteria so that I can amend the article to meet your standards for this not to be deleted. 93.40.185.121 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wolfram has a feature article covering pages 28 to 33 on the July 2020 issue of DJ Mag: [13]. This is firmly in WP:RSMUSIC territory; with the journalist likening Wolfram to an electronic version of Mozart ("El Amadeus electronico"). Therefore, coupled with the Vogue coverage alone, I rather suspect the subject is very likely notable. The article itself, however, appears to be a prime candidate for WP:TNT as it is largely WP:PUFFERY. ResonantDistortion 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the proper steps for an editor with a COI is to create an article in Draft space and submit it to AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I hope more music-oriented editors will help assess this article. Keep, Delete or Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Khai Xing

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

Fails NBAD and BLP Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding Pinoy Big Brother

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

WP:UNDUE for what amounts to tabloid fodder. I feel this should be consolidated to a single concise section in the main series article rather than a litany of every single controversy attached to the show. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Brother (franchise)#Controversies. At least the ones that had the authorities threatening to pull the plug on the show. Borgenland (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that huge chunks of the article are uncited and probably tainted by editors with vested WP:FANCRUFT interests. Borgenland (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gunawan

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

Fails NBAD. Stvbastian (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have read the 1st nomination, but no one cares about this article. Better this article move to draft.Stvbastian (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Ho, Kelly (2020-01-06). "Diocesan Boys' School student and badminton star Jason Gunawan follows in his father's footsteps". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "At some point, every athlete dreams of making it to the Olympics, but local badminton prodigy Jason Gunawan has had his heart set on competing at the sporting event since he was four years old. Jason, who celebrated his second consecutive win in the boys’ singles event at the All Hong Kong Schools Jing Ying Tournament last Monday, says he has been dreaming of Olympic glory ever since he watched Chinese player Lin Dan take gold at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. ... A love of badminton runs in Jason’s family. His father, a Chinese Indonesian, used to play for the Jakarta province team. As a child, Jason would head to the local sports centre with his father every Sunday to practise, eventually earning a spot on the Hong Kong junior team. He now trains 30 hours a week at the Hong Kong Sports Institute, but still finds time to practise with his dad, his biggest supporter."

    2. Cheung, Ka-Wa 徐嘉華 (2024-05-25). "羽毛球｜ 由外圍賽打至8強止步 吳英倫下月生日願望：今年闖入世界排名頭30" [Badminton｜ From qualifying to the top 8, Jason Gunawan's birthday wish next month: to break into the top 30 in the world this year]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "父母是印尼華僑的Jason，曾於2020年以最年輕球手（當時16歲）奪全港錦標賽男單冠軍，可惜一場疫情斷送足足3年的青少年比賽，直到2022年5月才開始由低（國際挑戰賽級別）打起，... Jason今年初繼續參加「國際挑戰賽」，亦遇到一些「超級300」的比賽，世界排名由年初105位到本月泰國公開賽（超級500）時是96位，他在該賽的16強，遇上世界排名第5的日本球星奈良岡功大，雙方拉鋸3局，港將只在決勝局輸「刁時」（21:11、 15:21、20:22)，世界排名升至本周的83位。"

      From Google Translate: "Jason, whose parents are Indonesian overseas Chinese, won the men's singles championship in the Hong Kong Championships in 2020 as the youngest golfer (16 years old at the time). Unfortunately, a pandemic ruined the youth competition for three full years, and it was not until May 2022 that it started. Starting from a low (International Challenge level),... Jason continued to participate in the "International Challenge" at the beginning of this year, and also encountered some "Super 300" competitions. His world ranking increased from 105th at the beginning of the year to this month's Thailand Open (Super 500). ) was ranked 96th at the time. In the top 16 of the tournament, he met Japanese star Kodai Naraoka, who was ranked fifth in the world. The two sides went back and forth for 3 games. The Hong Kong player only lost to "Diao Shi" in the decisive game (21:11, 15 :21, 20:22), the world ranking rose to 83rd this week."

    3. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-11-15). "Jason Gunawan crowned youngest-ever Hong Kong men's badminton champion at 16". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "Jason Gunawan became the youngest-ever men’s singles champion at the annual Hong Kong badminton championships at Kowloon Park Sports Centre on Sunday, thanks partly to his decision to turn to full-time training amid the pandemic. Just three months after cutting short his secondary school studies to pursue a full-time sporting career at the Sports Institute, the 16-year-old teenager reigned supreme in the three-game final against Chan Yin-chak, winning 21-19, 17-21, 21-13 to put himself in the record books."

    4. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-12-01). "Young gun Jason Gunawan sets sights on winning Olympic gold for Hong Kong". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "Outside of Hong Kong there is badminton legend Tony Gunawan, the 2000 Sydney Olympic men’s doubles champion of Indonesia. Here in Hong Kong there is 16-year-old Jason Gunawan, a fast-rising talent now setting his sights on becoming another Olympic gold-medal winner like his namesake. ... Gunawan will not be present in Tokyo either as he is still competing in junior events, but the 2024 Paris Games will be his first attempt at making the step up to Olympic level, with the Los Angeles Games four years later his major target for a medal. ... Born in Hong Kong with an Indonesian-Chinese father, Gunawan was destined to make a name in badminton before he was even born, he said."

    5. Ng, Chia Yin (2024-05-24). "Jason: I thank coach Wong for helping me grow". The Star. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "Hong Kong’s rising star Jason Gunawan appreciated coach Wong Choong Hann’s role in the growth of his career after checking into the men’s singles quarter-finals in the Malaysian Masters. ... Jason, who will be turning 20 next month, is expecting a tougher job against world No. 19 Lu Guangzu of China next but looking forward to gaining invaluable experience."

    6. Chiu, Tsz-chun 趙子晉 (2023-09-14). "羽毛球．香港賽｜李卓耀不敵基斯迪衛冕失敗　吳英倫力追世界距離" [Badminton: Hong Kong Open｜ Lee Cheuk Yiu Fails to Defend Title Against Kistkidis, Jason Gunawan Closes the Gap to World Rankings] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "吳英倫決勝局初段把握對方情緒不穩，多次放高波予甘克起板，Jason曾經領先5：2，甘克一度滑倒倒地。惟Jason體力有所下降，... 年僅19歲的吳英倫，以往主力出戰青年賽為主，就算越級挑戰成年組也是大多是國際挑戰賽級別，主場的香港賽是他生涯首個BWF 500分的賽事。"

      From Google Translate: "Jason Gunawan took advantage of his opponent's emotional instability in the early stage of the decisive game and sent high waves to Gan Ke several times. Jason once led 5:2, but Gan Ke once slipped and fell to the ground. But Jason's physical strength has declined... Jason Gunawan, who is only 19 years old, has mainly competed in youth competitions in the past. Even if he jumps to the adult group, most of them are international challenge competitions. The Hong Kong competition at home is his first BWF 500 in his career. points competition."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Gunawan (traditional Chinese: 吳英倫; simplified Chinese: 吴英伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1b. There is no new deletion rationale presented in this nomination compared to the previous one which was closed as keep. The sources cited by Cunard are literally identical to those listed in the previous nomination, and multiple Wikipedians have already reviewed and affirmed that these sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Deletion is not cleanup. I do not see a point to delete/drafity an article when numerous usable sources are already presented. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article should be keep, the statements and the sources should be move to Jason Gunawan wikipedia article. It is very uncomfortable to see the article with that statement: "Jason Gunawan is a Hong Kong badminton player." In other words, if i just look at the statement, there is nothing special about the subject. But, i still in my opinion to draft this article. Because it is too soon for a badminton player that did not meet NBAD. Stvbastian (talk) 15:39, 27 September 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 speedy keep‎ as disruption Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Bangladesh Army

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

Fails WP:MILUNIT. In the Bangladesh Army, women are notable at all, the references do not prove that female members are notable in the army, the references have just cut a dash in outside. Katunonot (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Embassy of the Maldives, Brussels

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

3 of the 4 sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there a possible Redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-upmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with its content essentially just being an explanation of its origin that could easily be included in the Wiktionary page. I don't see evidence of the term having standalone notability or passing WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Forster

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

This is a vanity article for a little-known freelance writer. His only claim to fame is drawing widespread mockery and condemnation for his book about wearing blackface across the United States. Much more notable Canadian journalists do not have Wikipedia pages, and the achievements listed are negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)

Keep - The critique overlooks the broader context of Sam Forster's contributions to the public discourse. While it's true that not every writer or journalist gains widespread recognition overnight, dismissing someone's work solely based on their level of fame or controversial moments is short-sighted. Forster’s book, which has indeed sparked debate, addresses sensitive and complex issues, and the ensuing reactions—both positive and negative—demonstrate that his work has provoked meaningful conversations.

It's essential to recognize that public figures who challenge societal norms often face harsh criticism, but that doesn't diminish the value of their contributions. Many notable figures throughout history were initially met with ridicule before their work was acknowledged as significant. Forster's willingness to tackle uncomfortable topics is an important part of his role as a writer. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a platform that reflects public interest, and Forster's coverage there simply mirrors the fact that his work, controversial or not, has sparked significant public attention.

Additionally, comparing Forster to other Canadian journalists based on fame is a false equivalence. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia page is not a measure of a person’s accomplishments, nor does it negate the relevance of their work. It's important to focus on the substance of what a writer has contributed to discussions, rather than focusing on how well-known they are or how their work has been received in certain circles.

---

This approach emphasizes the importance of intellectual discourse, the value of confronting complex societal issues, and challenges the assumptions about fame equating to worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves598 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor is now blocked. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The keep vote above by the blocked editor was entirely AI generated (according to gptzero.me), and on that basis should surely be entirely disregarded. Axad12 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some experienced editors to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Los Alamitos

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that could be found with a further in-depth search. Conyo14 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not enough to say "Keep", you should rebut the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Lakewood

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that I wouldn't want to mix with the others. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if we had a review of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nnamdi Nwizu

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

BLP of a person with a successful career, supported by primary sources and PR profiling. There is no claim to notability here and Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Fountain Valley

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources speak of the majority of hospitals within the network but give no significant coverage of the Fountain Valley location Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Strano

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

I'm not finding this professor and art critic notable per WP:Nacademic nor WP:NAUTHOR. The current sourcing consists of two press releases and a listing that is a simple name check. Part of a group of articles created to promote the "Empathic Movement". Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Super Hero Adventures (comic books)

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

Comic series fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch Gurjar Kshatriyas contributions to the Indian railways

[edit]
Kutch Gurjar Kshatriyas contributions to the Indian railways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POVCRUFT dedicated to the glorification of a particular caste largely based on WP:SYNTH and relies on unreliable WP:RAJ sources. There is no academic source that has given significant coverage to this subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Sloboda Čačak

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

Serbian football club fails WP:GNG. This article was deleted under WP:A7 almost 10 years ago, and it has only recently been undeleted. GTrang (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Giant Snowman is correct, are there sources that provide SIGCOV and help establish GNG? That is what is demanded now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: The arguments to keep this article all have merit, but in it's present state, it fails WP:GNG. I recommend draftifying it to give the person who requested undeletion (or anyone else for that matter) the chance to add sources improve it so that it meets Wikipedia's standards.DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Fagan

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

Article makes no claim to encyclopedic importance. It should have been speedy deleted per WP:A7 but it was oddly declined. Being a student and in a program that trains opera singers does not make one encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx WP:SPEEDY is different than a WP:GNG deletion rationale. The article still fails to make a credible encyclopedic claim in its current state and should be deleted under A7. SPEEDY is cleanup for articles that don’t meet a basic level of stub competency. Please read A7 which specifically excludes notability as a relevant issue. Yes notable topics can get deleted under A7.4meter4 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Your CSD nom was declined. AfD is not for relitigating declined CSDs. Different criteria apply at AfD. You need to make a different argument. Edwardx (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. That argument is WP:WIKILAWYERING and a subversion of both deletion policy and WP:CONSENSUS. It was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7 which doesn't make a credible encyclopedic claim. It's perfectly valid to seek community consensus to overturn a bad decision made by an editor who ignored A7 policy. If you want the encyclopedia to keep this article than I suggest you edit the article to meet a basic level of encyclopedic competence so A7 isn't valid. Otherwise, we don't keep articles on WP:BLPs that don't make a credible claim of encyclopedic importance no matter how many sources we find because WP:Notability is not relevant under A7 which is policy.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it "was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7", then why have you not raised this at User talk:asilvering? It was their call, not mine. Edwardx (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be obvious. It's better to use the WP:CONSENSUS process when there is a difference of opinions. That's wikipedia community policy, and WP:AFD is the community forum to discuss deletions. FYI WP:SPEEDY policy gets used at AFD with some frequency. It's not like this is an out of the norm conversation. Not all AFDs involve just WP:N. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the tone of the comments here is overly terse and accusatory. You might want to try WP:AGF and actually look at A7 policy objectively. You can't seriously be telling me that an article telling us someone went to a music school and got into a training program for opera singers is encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoyfulTentmaker WP:A7 has to do with in article text. Not what is outside the article. Please engage with WP:A7 policy language.4meter4 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like none of the keep voters are engaging with WP:A7 as policy. If the current in article text remains unaltered and we close this as keep, this will be a prime candidate fro WP:DELETIONREVIEW. We either follow deletion policy or we don't. It's that simple. If editors are finding encyclopedic achievements not currently in the article text please add a sentence or two to the article so that A7 is no longer an issue. 4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think these are about this person [17], [18], but I'm unsure. European opera isn't in my wheelhouse. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although I would greatly prefer that someone add the sources found and explain in context - per WP:HEY. I am an opera queen, but I’m not familiar with the subject. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get a review of the sources. A reminder, AFD isn't CSD so we needn't be focused on a previous tagging and stick with standard notability assessment of creative professionals that occurs in AFD deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Esfandiary

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

Fails notability and that's why this is an orphan article. there are just lots of not-really-related sources in Persian to make it look like a well-sourced article. while in fact this person is just a coach in a non-Olympic sport without much media coverage. Sports2021 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erfan Hossein Yazdi

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

Fails notability, he never achieved anything in senior level. the Asian bronze medal mentioned in this article is in the junior level. Sports2021 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahin Naghipour Jafari

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

Fails notability, almost everything in this article is not correct. he probably won some medals in some random tournaments but he never even participated in World or Asian Championships, let alone winning medals. this is more like a fake article trying to promote someone with no major achievement. Sports2021 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Närkes Kils SK

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

I tried my best in Swedish language sources but could not find significant, independent coverage about this sports club, only brief mentions in listings. Not enough to pass WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep: List or not. Bolletinen has one of the strongest sports online databases in Swedish. J 1982 (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It will be great if you can help add some references in Swedish to improve the article and prove the club's notability! Lâm (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been done with the Bolletinen source. "Maratontabell för högsta damserien 1978–2003" means "all-time table for the women's top division 1978–2003". J 1982 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That the publisher is reliable (which I think it most likely is) is not the only criterion for notability, though. That the club appears in a table doesn't make it notable per WP:NTEAM. I do find a bit of coverage of the table tennis section, e.g. [19] and [20] – though I wonder whether those newspapers might be a bit too local to really work towards showing notability. In any case, a) the spelling "Nerikes Kils SK" is more frequent than the spelling with "ä", and b) if the article is kept, it needs a lot of work, and it ought to include more than just a brief mention of the football team in the 1970s. I don't really have an opinion at the moment about its notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barra Head (band)

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

No credible claim of notability. Too underground to pass NMUSIC, and doesn't pass GNG either. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are reviews and coverage from Gaffa ([21], [22], [23] + other coverage), Undertoner [da] ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) Visions [de] ([29], [30] + some information in [31], [32]) and Ox-Fanzine ([33], [34], interview) toweli (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the new sources brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Grön

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Search does not produce any WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Alijani Monfared

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

Fails notability, not a famous person. never did anything special. for example the article says he won a silver in speed skating!? a silver in what competition ? the rest of his achievements look a bit fake or exaggerated. it feels like he just paid someone to create an article here for him. Sports2021 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"