Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 17	November 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge into Women in the military#Russia‎

Natalie Tychmini

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some brief mentions in various websites, but they all seem to have about the same level of coverage here, woman fought as a man, was found out and went home. Without much more, this isn't what we are looking for, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women_in_the_military#Russia, where some other WWI examples are mentioned. Or create a new List of women serving in the military disguised as men, perhaps including fictional (ballads etc) as well as real examples. PamD 08:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Women in the military#Russia: Though received a tangible award of Cross of St. George for fighting,but not enough significant sources Kaizenify (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Gouk

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing much grounds for encyclopedic notability here, looks like a meritorious but not unusual career so far. Plant pathology citations are generally fairly low in my experience, but there's only a single coauthored paper with moderate citations (59) that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, most of the references are not significant and fail WP:GNG Kaizenify (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could find nothing beyond publications and citations and passing mentions.4meter4 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced SCSI Programming Interface

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

Does not meet the bar for WP: N. I can't find any reliable source that isn't written by Brian Sawert. I found a student project by Johannes Lieder, some passing mentions, and a couple of sources whose reliability seems questionable at best, but without another source to establish notability, I believe this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject substantially covered in a 46-page chapter in Sawert's book The Programmer's Guide to SCSI (1998, Addison-Wesley); in a much shorter but still substantial page in Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PCs (2003, Que); in a 1995 Toronto Star article; in PC Mag and InfoWorld; and more. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Sawert's written about this at length, but generally we need multiple authors to establish independence. I also understand the other sources are reliable, but could you show how these sources provide in-depth coverage, ideally with quotations? Some of these don't look like significant coverage on face. Thanks for your hard work. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Mueller 2003, pages 563–564 and 771–772 in particular cover ASPI in depth. The Toronto Star article explicitly identifies itself as an article about ASPI ("This week, we'll talk about ASPI – the Advanced SCSI Programming Interface") and covers the background of SCSI and conflicts in the peripheral industry that inspired its invention. The InfoWorld article is an announcement of its introduction and the PC Mag article declares it the most popular of three competing SCSI standards and recognizes it as essentially the de facto standard for writing drivers for parallel SCSI devices two years after its invention. I found yet more sigcov in Computer Technology Review and PC Week. It was a fairly big deal in the computer industry for a while in the 1990s, even though USB obsoleted it in short order. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is great. Do you mind adding this to the article? You don't have to add everything here -- adding any one of these to the article is good enough for me. I certainly won't stop you if you want to though. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination after that's done. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing this AfD. Thanks again! HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few minutes in a simple WP:BEFORE search yielded a number of sources in addition the ones above: The Book of SCSI: A Guide for Adventurers, appendix D ,Data Storage Fundamentals, PC Hardware in a Nutshell, Advanced SCSI Programming Interface by Adaptec. All these in depth sources except the Adaptec reference (which is primary, but authoritative, given they created the standard) are secondary and the book of SCSI in in depth. Along with the press coverage cited above, this demonstrates notability per WP:GNG. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind adding these sources to the article? Any one of these is good enough for me, but feel free to them all if you wish! HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please close this AfD as a Keep. I no longer believe there are notability issues with the article. I don't know how to use the tool to close AfDs, so I'm leaving this for someone else to do because I'm afraid of messing it up. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azlan Mohd Lazim

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:ONEEVENT. It's hard to understand why a biography about this person (not that it is a real biography at the moment) is warranted. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and more broadly WP:GNG. This is not even a likely search term, as the father of a victim of sexual assault is only nominally connected to this event anyway.4meter4 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IForIndia

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:10YT and WP:NORG. Didn't get off the ground insofar as the website is dead and the Facebook page was last updated in 2019. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NORG. --Tupungato (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. They might do great work, but they don’t pass our standards for notability. This should’ve been deleted years ago. Bearian (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and page is clearly WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I reviewed all the references thoroughly, but none provide detailed information about the subject. As a result, it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's slim to none SIGCOV to be found. Garudam ^Talk! 13:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illya Tsaryuk

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

Played half a game of football with no significant coverage cited here nor on Ukrainian Wikipedia (although the latter has more content, the sources are all non-independent or database sources). My own searches yielded Champion and UA Football, neither of which are anywhere near enough for even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, a lower bar than WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If this isn't a failure to "make any credible claim of significance or importance", nothing is. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not A7 eligible. Giant Snowman 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, because the link between playing one football match and significance or importance has been completely severed. Saying that a person played one football match is no more a claim to notability than "George White is a high school teacher". Well over one thousand AFDs and PRODs reaffirm this. Geschichte (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. All the sources I found under this name were for a wrestler that was clearly a different person.4meter4 (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Although the nom has withdrawn, I'm closing it as a normal keep as this discussion has been open for at least 168 hours. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kambal sa Uma (TV series)

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

Entirely unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search brings up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Philippines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. Passes WP:NTVNATL. Show aired in 2009, or 15 years ago. Link rot is real, and the ABS-CBN News references I used in 2010 Philippine presidential election are all dead (LOL). this PEP.ph reference pushes above WP:GNG. Withdraw the nomination, and stop wasting our time. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Broadcast on a major national network; notable cast, verifiable (https://ent.abs-cbn.com/articles-photos/throwback-shaina-magdayao-and-melissa-ricks-in-kambal-sa-uma-14712 (not independent)): a redirect is warranted anyway (so opposed to deletion). Also see https://www.pep.ph/news/local/3704/kambal-sa-uma-will-premiere-on-april-20 (anecdotic coverage in https://www.spot.ph/entertainment/54092/bida-problems?s=nhaip66nt38j6qs6u1lmg53ang for the record) -Mushy Yank. 10:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and comments by Howard the Duck and Mushy Yank. Article's sourcing has significantly improved since the time of nomination.4meter4 (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am willing to withdraw the nomination at this time per WP:HEY and WP:SNOW. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Elf Bar. asilvering (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mary

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

It has been in the NPP for a very long time. Unable to find sufficient significant coverage, fails WP:ORG. - The9Man ^Talk 11:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - cursory source for sources - Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Law360, Financial Times, Independent, The Times, The Guardian, Birmingham Mail, The Grocer. Bristol Post. New York Times, TheJournal.ie, Wired starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I ended up with were just mentions. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to improve the article.- The9Man ^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The9Man, thank you. I created the Lost Mary article because the brand is ubiquitous in the UK. The area behind the till in every corner shop is covered in Lost Mary products. I was looking for information and couldn't believe there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia but I can contribute a photograph of an electronic cigarettes display showing the Lost Mary products, if this helps. Jfclemay (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfclemay, Thank you for your contribution! Wikipedia articles require coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You can read the guidelines here - WP:ORGCRIT. If you have sources such as news articles, industry publications, or other reputable coverage about the brand, adding those could strengthen the article. Additionally, photographs can be valuable, just be sure that any images you upload are your own work or that you have the proper permissions.

@Thanks again for your efforts! - The9Man ^Talk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect The sources above are all dicdefs for 'passing mention' as far as Lost Mary is concerned, listed in each as one of a number of 'brands of concern' and introduced typically with 'such as...' - Elf Bar might make the grade on coverage, albeit for all the wrong reasons. But Lost Mary is one of a large number of brands the company makes and does not merit an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elf Bar, see Reuters. IgelRM (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that there Elf Bar article for some reason. Agree this makes sense as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing that appears notability or encyclopedic content, is not because something exists that is relevant to an article. Svartner (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kuzmichová

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on primary sources. Does not meet WP:NSKATE. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – All I found on Czech news media were passing mentions like 1 and 2. This might be the closest source describing Kuzmich but likewise is not written in significant detail. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham Memorial

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

Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)

I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there should not be articles for parish wards, but Hykeham Memorial (formerly North Hykeham Memorial) (https://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE05014436), with the same boundaries as the parish ward (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/north_kesteven_order_map.pdf), is a ward of North Kesteven district. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing currently doesn't meet WP:GNG. All this discussion of non-policy related criteria doesn't matter. What matters is the sourcing, and currently the sourcing either WP:PRIMARY sources or dubious sources like a walkers club website. We need independent secondary sources to cover this topic.4meter4 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Sinicyn

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All I found on Czech news media were passing mentions like 1 and 2. This might be the closest source describing Sinicyn but likewise is not written in significant detail. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Watch Company

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

The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This and this both listed on the page are neither paid or bad quality. They both seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unless there is something I am missing you can point out. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Boston Globe and Axios items are both WP:SIGCOV that pass the threshold for WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Hunk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neon Hunk

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

I believe this article should be deleted for a few reasons; the first and most major is notability. I do not believe, at least as of this time, this duo is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. The article lacks sources, only featuring one that was put in the article in 2015. I've searched for sources to add to the article and can only find one article, a Pitchfork review, on an album they published, rather than the duo themselves. The article uses non-neutral language, such as "other noise/freak weirdos". It also contains a lot of unsourced speculation, stating that part of the duo is working on a full-length album, but this has never been published or confirmed by any source. Most of the wikilinks on the article go to non-existant pages, and no pages for the discography of the duo exist at all. This page has existed for years (since 2004 according to the edit history) and in that time, no verifiable and trustworthy sources have given notable information about the duo. Beachweak (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a Pitchfork review ([1]) and an AllMusic review ([2]). toweli (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just noting the existence of two reviews. Leaning delete, unless more sources are found. toweli (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources to establish notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also found reviews of Smarmymob in Stylus Magazine [3], Dusted Magazine [4], Suburban Voice [5] and this more trivial output: [6] and this one: [7] @Beachweak of course reviews are of albums. Albums are what musicians make. Do you propose an article is written about the album instead? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea to turn the page into a redirect rather than deleting it entirely; somebody would have to write the article on the album, though. Maybe delete the page until an article is published and then turn it into a redirect? Beachweak (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, WP:A9 is there for a reason. An album article is not particularly encyclopedic when an interested reader cannot learn more about the band because they're not notable enough for their own article. That's my take on this side discussion about the album, and otherwise I am undecided about deleting or keeping the band and will have to leave it at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about the album; my proposition is to delete the page ABOUT the duo. In the future, there could be an article written about the album, but the duo Neon Hunk, at least right now, are not very notable source wise. If you review the article right now, there is one source that isn't very descriptive (and currently leads to a 404). Apart from that, the entire article is unsourced. I still think it should be deleted unless more sources about the duo are found. Beachweak (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Doomsdayer Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: as a rule, I ask that proponents of new sources to keep an article be included for me to evaluate the results for WP: HEY. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the sources presented in this discussion thread.4meter4 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [8]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK per the sources found by PARAKANYAA, ReaderofthePack, and Toughpigs.4meter4 (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordillera Negra (Chile)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs. 1 and 2 are sufficient to indicate that this place exists and has that name. I can't check ref. 3 because I haven't got access to the book. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in this discussion. The nominator has withdrawn. It's time to close this.4meter4 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Winmark#Plato's Closet. ✗plicit 23:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's Closet

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

This clothing store does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The page was previously draftified, so I'm taking to AfD for discussion per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. All sources I am able to find are either passing mentions, routine coverage, or not independent of the store. The only mentions in reliable sources I found (e.g., [9][10]) seem to be very routine coverage – "new store opening in x location" type stories from local media outlets. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Winmark, which already has a subsection on it. I'm finding listings and brief descriptions, but not significant coverage that would support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I'd agree with a merge and redirect Winmark#Plato's Closet. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I am confident I could likely find enough WP:ORGCRIT to keep based on just a few I found like this and this. Based on my experience with companies, those references indicate there are likely more but I don't have the time or patience. One issue we will run into when searching for soruces is that many franchises shotgun out so many press releases that it creates difficulty going through a sea of churnalism and routine announcements. It is also sufficiently covered at Winmark.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gedney

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He gets some coverage in Nigel Boeg's darts books but not enough to be considered WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Salmon (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He gets some coverage in one of Nigel Boeg's darts books but not enough to be considered WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McDonald (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He gets passing mentions in mulitple darts books in google books but not enough to be considered WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Milford

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another sportsman article with scant sources. I do not see the article's raison d'etre. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I located only one good independent source: [11] That's not enough to pass WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Foreman (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He gets a passing mention in one of Nigel Boeg's darts books, and I found a couple of name drops in google news, but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. I see a rough consensus to keep working on the page in draftspace. Please note that there's already a stub at Draft:NASCAR on Prime Video. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on Amazon Prime

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

Total WP:ADMASQ. Since when is the station which covers NASCAR a notable intersection.? Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG. All I can see is four paragraphs: Announced, Reported, Announced and Announced. The references are highly similar, PR churnalism. For me this was close to CSD G11, but, since it is a disputed draftification I feel it deserves discussion. YMMV 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Business, Companies, and Motorsport. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:ATD - meets WP:NFTV and WP:CRYSTAL as a confirmed future broadcast series. This broadcast series has reliable sourcing confirming its expecting occurrence (source 2, plus: The Athletic and Autoweek). Whether these sources are enough to meet GNG is another question. I'd have preferred the creator not have returned to mainspace from draftspace at this time to allow for better sourcing to be added to it, but citing WP:ADMASQ and contemplating WP:G11 is WP:TROUT-worthy. Returning to draft is the correct option. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney you are welcome to trout me, but that will not alter my opinion. Your comment dances very close to ad hominem. I'm old and ugly enough not to let that trouble me, but it is worthy of mention. I'm looking forward to the fish. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was focused on refuting the central point, with a mention of Wikipedia's old silly fish at the end. Apologies for coming off as overly hostile. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the levity and the apology, both. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not worthy of an article, fails on all of the points raised by the nominator. In looking for a potential redirect ATD, I see List of NASCAR broadcasters has been determined to be merged to NASCAR on television and radio, ~~which, admittedly, is titled exactly wrongly as the destination for a redirect, so alas, I don't have much to offer here other than delete unfortunately.~~ Expanded below. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Prime technically television? Would it be an appropriate merge location should a new section be created? I think there may be a possible merge solution if so. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Update, with respect to the below discussions and !vote and rationale from the article creator, I think a draftify is also a valid result. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to speak for the article creator, and I also am aware that I'm getting into WP:OTHERSTUFF here, but I don't doubtr that the idea of the article is to be akin to NASCAR on FOX, NASCAR on NBC, NASCAR on TNT, etc. Amazon won a portion of the NASCAR television broadcasting rights during the latest negotiations this year to air on Amazon Prime Video (along with the traditional TV networks I just mentioned).[12] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree and would expect that in future discussions a merge decision here would not preclude a truly notable article from occupying the mainspace. I agree with the nominator, however, that this appears to be a lot of churnalism or reporting on routine coverage, as given by the links by @Esolo5002 below. But what I'm not seeing now is independent coverage removed from the subject. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. A television program of the highest league of a major American sport is almost always notable. Amazon announces a change in its broadcast booth, several reliable sources report on it [13], [14], [15]. I personally would not have moved this out of draftspace, and I'm not opposed to simply moving it back to draft. But this clearly will be notable and a straight deletion, merge or redirect is not something I would support. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As nominator I am not averse to draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means it could not be returned to draft unilaterally, but requires consensus. Those suggesting this course may wish to consider whether the topic as presented is capable of improvement or whether WP:TNT should be applied, potentially by consensus of this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It's best to let this develop and improve in draft space as further sources emerge in the near future.4meter4 (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the creator of the article: Thanks everyone for your comments so far. I do want to address a few of them. User:GhostOfDanGurney is right that the purpose of creating the article was for it to be the same as other articles about NASCAR TV coverage (NASCAR on Fox, NASCAR on NBC, etc.) with Amazon Prime now getting TV rights to the Cup Series starting in 2025. I think it wouldn't be a good idea to not have an article for Amazon Prime's coverage even though the coverage will be exclusively on streaming. I did go back and look at the article and do see that a bunch of the sources are press releases (particularly from NASCAR.com) so I understand why it was nominated for deletion. I wouldn't be opposed to it being moved back to a draft for the time being until more are found. Something that hasn't been brought up is adding a {{refimprove}} or {{multiple issues}} notices on the top of the article mentioning the need for sources that aren't press releases (and other users attached such sources in their comments above). There are many articles about NASCAR drivers and related topics on Wikipedia that have this notice and if we are to return this article to draftspace to make those improvements and then move it back then when those other articles are in mainspace, then I don't think it'd be consistent with how we go about it in those other instances, so my vote is lean keep. Cavanaughs (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, the sources needed to establish notability will almost certainly become available, similar to those used in NASCAR on FOX. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a bit too soon, but it's inevitably going to get SIGCOV and as such there's no real reason to draftify either. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ and salted by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, WP:XFD". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Ratan Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

Only holds position within the party and not elected to any assembly and also lack of independent reliable sources discussing the subject. Fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The article creator removed the G4 CSD tag. I've restored it and reported the creator to AIV. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manises. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polideportivo Municipal de Manises

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

Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a list of every structure to have ever existed. Stadiums are split off from clubs/cities when they are subjects of discussion as primary theme. "Stadium" with 1,000 capacity in town of 30,000; many American high schools probably have bigger facilities. Team has played one season ever in a national (regionally divided) league, in 1956-57. Not sure whether there is anything at all to salvage and whether that goes to the town or the team. Not even the biggest enthusiast of stadiums in Spain has written about this [16] Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manises as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Manises. The town currently doesn't mention the stadium so this will need to be a merge.4meter4 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus is to delete. More discussion on whether or not to salt would be useful but not useful enough to refrain from going ahead and closing this AfD as delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tirana teen stabbing

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst tragic, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and Albania. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why? it is informative. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something to exist on Wikipedia it has to meet the notability guidelines. Single incidents like this typically don't as they don't have long-lasting coverage in reliable sources. CoconutOctopus talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I's still a tragic event and people deserve to know what happened. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep it; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. CoconutOctopus talk 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many incidents like this have had limited coverage and still have a Wikipedia article. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm sorry a youngster died, but realistically in many parts of the world, a knife fight between kids with a fatality isn't noteworthy, it's just Tuesday. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article can't be deleted just because some people think it's an ordinary thing to happen. The topic is much deeper than that. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event has received significant coverage in Albania. The media is continuously addressing this topic. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I believe this article should be kept. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
You are only supposed to !vote once. Please remove your additional "keep" bold-text. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth mentioning the reaction of the public opinion. This event has had a much broader impact than initially expected. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt WP:NOTNEWS applies but this page also has some significant violations of WP:BLPCRIME - I deleted a sentence identifying a juvenile who has not stood trial as "the killer". There are additional issues with the assumption of guilt in article copy that are still problematic though less egregious. Beyond these problems there is no indication that this is anything other than a very unfortunate crime - there's nothing encyclopedically relevant about those. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether it is a remarkable event or not, it is too early to tell. Deletion and if the event proves to be significant it can be rewritten. Why such a hurry? LefterDalaka (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already significant. It has caused a lot of concern and has been subjected to a lot of media coverage. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most crimes are non-notable even if they cause an immediate sensation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This crime has caused an immediate reaction and widespread shock, showing that it is notable Lightnightx3x (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it shows that it is notable because of the media significantly covering it. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not have sufficient notability (such things happen on a daily basis, unfortunately), and as per WP:NOTNEWS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. You don't see fatalities from stabbing fights in Albania every day. Every major news outlet in Albania is reporting this. I wouldn't have made this article if this would be an ordinary thing to happen. You don't see this every day. Also, I don't mean to violate WP:NOTNEWS. It was something shocking. School fights can happen every day, even with knives, but not with a fatality and such a big reaction. Lightnightx3x (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - replying to every !vote at an AfD is often perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING and is frowned upon. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for informing me. Sorry. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightnightx3x, I appreciate your desire to create new articles. However, you are still new here and have to go through a process of learning and getting experience. When multiple established editors say you are wrong, indeed you are. I would advise you to focus on improving existing articles first, and then as you gain experience, create new ones from scratch. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create this article because I thought a notable event like this deserved to. Thanks for the tips and your patience. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations & Communications Branch

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Also, no WP:RS given. Nxcrypto Message 17:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no comment on notability but the article looks like it was written by Chat GPT and is very promotional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AI concerns aside, it's unreferenced, no WP:SIGCOV, and an individual branch of a union isn't really WP:NOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a certain amount of irony in using AI to create an article focused on journalists, trade unions, and communications. For this I rather applaud the chutzpah of the creator. But, no, agreed with nom - delete. ResonantDis_tortion 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is a branch/arm/sub-section of the National Union of Journalists and doesn't appear to have any independent notability. Certainly I cannot find any sources to establish notability of the PR department of this union. The other issues (highlighted by the nom and self-evident in the article itself) do very little to help. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for it to be marked for deletion. These all seem to be legitimate enough issues to take with it. I shall take on board all comments as I develop as a contributor to Wikipedia. Hyperpolymath (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific responses to bits there, in case there needs to be fuller response:

- it was not written by ChatGPT but did ask Llama to restructure the text to meet Wikipedia requirements, then did have to write bits of it again. I just tried using zeroGPT.org to check it does show 'human origin, contributions by ChatGPT', which does reflect this. If that is not the best one or the approved one, it is worth knowing.

- citations? facts checked, but had not yet got round to adding them, I had problems fixing/formatting the 'infobox' (someone helpfully did fix that) that I came back to attend to along with citations just now for. I actually did think that for a 'new page' or 'major edit' there was a delay before going live.

- promotional sounding? I will accept the judgement of others, but the purpose was to highlight points of note, which builds the case for notability.

- the point about the branch/arm/subsection of the NUJ is legitimate [it is not actually a department but a member function that is federated into the NUJ - BUT it is dependent in status]. The reason for separating it out is because the NUJ title does not make explicit that PR and Comms practitioners are able to be admitted to membership or are through it represented and there is no other 'independent' trade union of the UK/Ireland that covers PR and Comms as a specific entity.

NOTE: This is to address above points, not to fight for to exist as an independent page/entity. I think that criticism is legitimate, the feedback is useful, and I put up no contest for its continued existence. Hyperpolymath (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TNT and WP:NOT. In 2007, you could jump right in and make mistakes like this, you didn’t know, no harm. In 2024, arguments that the creator didn’t know how to write an article or doesn’t know what we are, are untenable. Bearian (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining, and I accept that as appropriate (I slightly disagree, but overwhelmingly it is a consensus, so I defer to you).

Given that decision, what does it mean? Am I forbidden from making further submissions - is there a strike system? Is there a remedial thing I can do to focus on this, or is it only the general documentation. And you have said 'delete it' - is that an instruction to me to do, or will you do that?

If I am still allowed to contribute, I will make my way through all the learning materials online on the site that I can find that are relevant. But please let me know - if I need to delete it (or you will), and if I am not allowed to contribute (or what my current status is)? Thank you. Hyperpolymath (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely still allowed to contribute, and in fact are encouraged to do so! I will post shortly on your talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination, the comments, and the fact that AI generated text usually contains OR and it is hard to distinguish hallucinatory text from factual information, especially for the average WP reader.Plasticwonder (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudamini Mishra

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

Article lacking WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Nxcrypto Message 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- she has been featured on reliable sources. Like

https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/beauty-and-brains-as-never-seen-before-in-the-genius-of-the-bestselling-autho r-and-artist-saudamini-mishra-aka-dhi-who-has-mastered-her-art-and-the-selling-of-it-to-change-lives-121030901304_1.html and https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/saudamini-mishra-changing-lives-with-the-most-intellectual-stories-1201118011 79_1.html and https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/author-saudamini-mishra-releases-her-fifth-bestselling-book-dhi-s-law-of-nine-archety pes-of-dhi-s-transformation-series-1985264-2022-08-08 and https://thedailyguardian.com/i-wanted-lives-to-be-changed-saudamini/ . 3 sourcs is enough for notability.Stromeee (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources don't work (linking errors). You might need to fix them. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no serious third party coverage as far as I can tell.-KH-1 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about the arts in India (outside of pop culture like Bollywood films) is difficult. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any serious sources. Fails GNG as an artist, writer, and (pseudo)scientist Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The citations are poorly sourced and the issue of SIGCOV remains. Garudam ^Talk! 13:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close‎. ...and a trout to the WP:FORUMSHOPPING nominator. The RFD was closed with an explicit decision to keep the redirect, and a implied consensus to keep the content at Kaufman, Texas (there were two full !votes in the RFD, both of which said "keep the redirect and restore the content [that had been removed by the nominator] to the article". Instead the nominator chose to leave the content removed from the article, restore the redirect to an article, and bring it to AFD. That's not how things are done here. I will be restoring the content to the article on Kaufman, Texas, per the RFD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources aside from WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Additionally, the airport is permanently closed and has been removed from FAA records. NOTE: I recently PROD'd this page and another user who didn't realize the airport was closed did a good-faith merge with Kaufman, Texas, and converted this article into a redirect, which I then RfD'd, but it failed to reach consensus. Hitting "Rewind" to try and undo this mess. Carguychris (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do you have a source confirming the airport as closed? If so, perhaps you could change the article to use the past tense – to help AfD !voters, and also going forward if the AfD does not result in deletion. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The consensus of the latest RfD was to keep the page as a redirect to Kaufman, Texas. The nom overturned the RfD close to replace the redirect with the article. I have now reverted it to the redirect. While turning a redirect to a standalone article is good, and the way to go, doing this for the purpose of AfD is not. While there was one suggestion at the RfD to restore the article for AfD, the RfD close did not support it. Jay 💬 17:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shaouni (police officer)

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

A fair quantity of news sources for this event, but the person is otherwise not notable. WP:BLP1E? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. - Donald Albury 22:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skynxnex (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLPCRIME/WP:PERP as well as WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket balance

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

This has been sitting here as a largely unsourced original research essay for over 15 years. Since there's been almost zero attempt to rectify this, I think it should just be removed from the enecylopedia. (Perhaps it could be thrown into a draft for someone to work on over the next 15 years) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a list of sources at the bottom, might be OR, but it's not unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, and why I said "largely unsourced" - the bulk of the content appears to be unsourced OR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a list of sources at the bottom, but none of them uses the term "ticket balance" and all are talking about different (but related) things, with this article apparently trying to tie them all together into a coherent concept...textbook WP:OR. This source uses the term "balanced ticket": [17], but I don't know about its reliability. I can find passing uses of the phrase in different non-RS articles (blogs and so forth) but it's not clear that they're talking about the same thing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – it took me about 15 minutes to find half a dozen good news articles from different presidential election cycles that mention ticket balancing -- I added them all to this article and will continue to add more. The original author may not have cited any sources, but this is not an original research essay. This is a term frequently mentioned in the news every 4 years, with sources dating back to the 1990s and earlier. Scholars also frequently talk about how JFK picked LBJ to balance the ticket and unite the Democratic party, that was in 1960. It will not be hard to find more sources. This nom was lazy. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find and add 18 sources in under half an hour. If anyone would like me to find more, please ask! –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps again confirming that unsourced tags are meaningless, but AfDs suddenly get results? Sigh. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added by Aaronw1109 are easily enough to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sal2100. BD2412 T 03:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough work has been done as to avoid deletion. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on new citations added to the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire

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

A mess of WP:SYNTH connecting disparate incidents across centuries. The subject topic itself ("Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire") has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Bangladesh, and India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? The article has sources backing up everything.

"Connecting disparate incidents", what do even mean by that? Obviously I would check out all the dynasties and not just one single one JingJongPascal (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has proper sources backing everything up.

JingJongPascal (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Coeusin (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations of the Mughal Empire also does not have a source saying it's distcintity JingJongPascal (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: @JingJongPascal Its not that even if article is verifiable it be created per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion this whole article can better be a subsection in Magadha article.Nor it has sufficient enough of being standing alone.

Edasf «Talk» 15:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not covered as a distinct topic in sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. All the content, if it is not already there, should go to the individual pages - Nanda, Maurya etc. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Another example of nationalistic revision of history that is taking place in India and Wikipedia being used for it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide how this is a "nationalistic revision of History"

Maybe discuss about the reasons you don't like the articled instead of pointing out my views and ideologies which has nothing to do here?

WP:PersonalAttack JingJongPascal (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author addresses the issue of SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donevan Chew

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

Pretty obvious promotional article with sentences that could only be written by the article subject or someone they paid to write about them "more importantly, is the owner of four pika Chews (three sons, one daughter)". The only reference is an 3-sentence official blurb, probably also publicist-written. He won a Clio Award, but I am skeptical of that being a real claim of notability. It looks like there were 1,215 Clio Awards given in that year alone. Here2rewrite (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a marketing exec, so sourcing I find is all PR-ish items [18]. Not sure what a pika is, his children? Regardless, delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. It’s difficult to take this seriously when the lead talks about his hair. No reliable sources, no article. Bearian (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seongju Oh

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and it looks a bit as though it is derived largely from what is on the official website (https://seongjuoh.com/biography/). I have not been able to find, during WP:BEFORE, decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC – N.B. he has been a member of two notable ensembles, but I am not sure that he would class as a "reasonably prominent" member. There are a lot of listings type sources, but I could find nothing like critical reviews of the his performances or compositions. It is possible that god sources in German or Korean exist, in which case I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphis neeladriensis

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

Species sourced only sourced to predatory journals. Catalogue of Life just repeats the original source, doesn't evaluate scientific validity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoL recognises the species because it is recognised by Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium (hosted at Kew Gardens). It's also recognised by Mycobank. Both are curated, although they may not check if the journal is predatory. These are the usual sources used for fungi species so should we second guess them? — Jts1882 | talk 14:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're curated in that they verify that a name appeared in a publication somewhere. Not that the species is valid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:NSPECIES says Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. (my bold). This species does not appear to have that with the predatory journal issue, so normally I would say delete. What Jts1882 mentions is what brings me just over the threshold though. Are there enough secondary sources checking this that aren't just indiscriminate databases? It seems that way based on Jts' description since societies, etc. usually have some checks in place even if they aren't doing a full-scale secondary verification. If it's more of a rubber stamp though that just repeats anything, then I'd be more likely to drift back towards delete. KoA (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. Both those databases have listed curators working for reputable academic institutions. I consider them reliable sources for fungi. One problem is that the taxonomic codes don't have provisions to exclude validly published names based on the type of journal, e.g. predatory or self-published (which have recently caused havoc for herpetologists).

What is the Wikipedia policy on predatory journals? Is it a ban or a use with caution warning. If the latter, then I think we have reliable sources to back up the species. — Jts1882 | talk 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is that unreliable journals are unreliable and not to be relied on, like any other unreliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why the journal here wouldn't qualify for the WP:NSPECIES requirement (now officially a guideline btw). Thanks for posting to Wikiproject Fungi. Hopefully more folks familiar with those orgs can chime in, but I'm drifting more towards delete until secondary sources cite the paper uncritically. KoA (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is the primary source that is considered unreliable, but the secondary sources (curated databases) accept the taxa. How is rejecting such secondary sources not some sort of secondary research (i.e. overriding the conclusions of the secondary sources). — Jts1882 | talk 20:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The honest question I have as an entomologist and not a fungi expert is if these databases are truly reliable secondary sources for this particular purpose. If it was merely a matter of those databases reflecting that the species description has been published in any journal, then that's not quite enough for us here. If there's even a bit of validation where an expert is checking the description/paper itself and saying "Yeah, it looks like a good description." I'd say that would be just enough. KoA (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried to do a little more digging today. There are a few papers citing the initial description of Mohabe et al. 2016, but they're almost all from the original lead author. Only these two are independent articles citing it.[19][20] The first source only says it looked at long list of sources to construct phyolgenetic trees including that one, but nothing else is said about the source or this species. In the second, this all is all that is said (about a different species Graphis plumieae, No further reference to this obviously rare species aside the original description from Guadeloupe could be found in the literature until recently when it was found in India (Mohabe et al. 2016) and in Portugal (Lepista & Aptroot 2016).

At the least, the paper is being cited uncritically by other independent peer-reviewed sources, so that can just eek this AfD over to keep for me without the question of databases, though I would have preferred to see the sources at least briefly mentioning Graphis neeladriensis for it to be a more solid keep. KoA (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In this case we need to balance our concern of predatory journals by examining policy at WP:EXPERTSPS as it relates to subject matter experts. In this case the journals in question have respected authors who are respected professionals in their field. While we may question the journal as a whole, I don't think there is a valid concern with these particular sources given who the authors are. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respected professionals do not publish in predatory journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on comments above. Also, dismissing the primary source because of where it is published and ignoring reliable secondary/tertiary sources is probably some sort of original research. If expert curators have accepted the species, we should respect that unless there are sources challenging the original report. — Jts1882 | talk 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't. They're just repeating that a species name was used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (2024 film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM; created by an account representing the film's production company Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film does not pass notability guidelines as its citation are primary sources. Searching for sources is difficult because the title of the film is similar to other very notable subjects. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The film looks great and the poster is impressive, but there's just no coverage for the film. Most student and/or short films tend to fly under the radar, this is no exception. I hope that everyone involved goes on to great things and that we can eventually create articles for them, but right now the movie just isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Šembera

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

I did not find any good sources to verify that he meets the WP:GNG criteria. The only external link does not work. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

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

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FRINGE. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t publish these sorts of stories. Bearian (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non. However, the "Jerusalem UFO Hoax" seems possibly notable, with widespread reliable coverage. However, very little coverage mentions Cohen with regards to that sighting, and fails BLP1E. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summers Vitus Nwokie

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

Contested draftification without improvements, so here we are. Fails WP:NBIO. Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concerns of undisclosed paid editing aside (see: File:Summers Vitus Nwokie.jpg), there are no sources to establish the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the other two sources being fluff, a single reliable source in a local newspaper isn’t enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This doesn't meet GNG. I tried searching online for some sources, nothing reliable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Nakao

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

Playing 1 cup game for a J League team is a weak claim to notability. Sources in ja:wiki are either primary or match reports, none are in-depth. As such he fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dečan operation

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

The entire section on the operation itself is unsourced, and it has 0 information on the actual operation, only explaining the lay-out of the operation and that the KLA were entrenched. The sources only mention the casualties and are not in-depth. The article is also not writen from a neutral prespective with it refering to the KLA as "terrorists" and using serbian letters for Albanian names like Hashim Thaçi. This article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hirst

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

Delete – I suggest that the subject is not notable - my WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing of substance, no reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Music, Television, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication of notability from Google search results. Article has been unsourced since 2006 when it was created. This photoman fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being the "un-named photographer" doesn't meet ACTOR. The rest seems like a resume/CV. I don't see anything about this individual online. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found pretty much nothing online or through ProQuest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – completely unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – I agree with Bearian. Headhitter (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unable to find any reliable sources after extensive searching using Google newspapers and Google books. I've searched with the full name plus various keywords, such as: "photographer"; "photojournalist"; even "camera". Also searched for the full name with the film title: "Call Me a Cabbie", all to no avail. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced not-notable BLP. Did not find any mentions of the film "Kate Middleton and the Media" by reliable sources. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 08:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable, no mention on Newspapers.com. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Editors have shown that there are little references to be found, making the subject non-notable. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see very limited support for deletion here, and a meaningful improvement in sourcing during the four weeks this AfD has been open. Owen× ☎ 16:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [21], and some analysis here [22] and here [23]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [24], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:

Dánta Póca [25][26]
Ó Chréanna Eile / From Other Earths [27][28]

And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):

Ar Thóir Gach Ní [29]
Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [30]

I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough here for both GNG and AUTHOR in my opinion. Note that the interview brought by LEvalyn includes a substantive introduction that would I think count towards GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by those commenting in this discussion have proved WP:SIGCOV is met. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I am re-writing the article. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. There's quite a lot of scholarly publications on this group.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to analyse the changes added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is WP:SIGCOV based on the work and sources brought in by 4meter4. It passes notability. Mekomo (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

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

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly List of Holocaust memorials and museums § United Kingdom could be expanded into a full article along the lines of List of Holocaust memorials and museums in the United States, as there are 156 search results for "Holocaust" in the Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register. The contents of this page could then be a section there. Ham II (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular Stolperstein is unique because it is the only one in the United Kingdom. This has made this particular one the subject of signifcant coverage, and has also made it the site of activist activities which get in the news such as [31], [32] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I find the Keep arguments lacking in P&G substance. However, the previous AfD resulted in a soft-deletion, making this ineligible for G4 speedy-deletion. I also find the case for SALT to be weak, especially since the author(s) game the titles anyway. Pinging @Cryptic: to take a look and decide whether this justifies a title-blacklist entry. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends (Cricket)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non notable cricket tournament trying to use WP:NOTINHERITED to assert a notability. Just because a number of notable former players competed at this event, it doesn't mean the event itself is notable, and the coverage for the event does not pass WP:GNG. We have deleted many similar non-notable "legends/masters" event articles like this in the past. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and England. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: It's the same page that was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends, now under a new title. Both titles should be salted as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. It is different from the previous page and this is a notable tournament approved by England and Wales Cricket Board. I invite Red_Phoenix to share the views here as i can saw their contribution on the page earlier.Shawshank123 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)— Shawshank123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's the same tournament that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (although that was an AFD with minimal participation). Please provide evidence that it passes WP:GNG rather than just stating that it's notable- most of the sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most I can say is I declined the speedy deletion request as being dissimilar to the linked previous deletion request, which was not to the link that Joseph2302 put above but instead to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Legends Cricket Trophy. Knowing about the other discussion now, I probably would have still recommended AFD just because of the minimal participation and the recreation that indicates someone else disagrees (this is a “spirit of the policy” interpretation rather than a letter of the policy one), but I make no opinion on how noteworthy the event itself actually is. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake on the G4 nomination, sorry. But agree that a second AFD is more sensible than speedy deletion, as the 1st AFD had limited participation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Yet another recreation of this article, which has been deleted several times under various titles. Fails WP:GNG, absolutely zero notability. AA (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles like this need to be on Wikipedia. seems notable with the news articles.103.38.37.181 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC) — 103.38.37.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. Recreation of a page previously deleted numerous times under another name so a SALT should be done.4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Palmer (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only single source cited. Absolutiva (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nomination rationale. Google search result provides no indication of notability of this actor. He fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan

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

No evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, a trivial grouping of characteristics Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is a list of 48 female wrestlers, I think it would be best to change the alphabetical format of the list to a table, and also add additional sources. Maybe when there are 90 or 100, the alphabetical format would make sense. Nikotaku (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a very arbitrary set of criteria. Not sure why this exists. — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NLIST. It is just another WP:FAN article/list. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I've also moved DWLC-AM here as proposed. Any editor may revert the move, preferably after discussing with those proposing it here. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWLC

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DWLC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move DWLC-AM to this title, and delete the redirect DWLC-TV which has no mention at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Shhhnotsoloud. BD2412 T 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Move is not exactly an articles for deletion outcome. So, obviously the consensus here is to delete this DAB page. Moving DWLC-AM to DWLC has nothing to do with AfD and can be boldly handled by anyone. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move DYKC-AM to this title and delete the DYKC-TV redirect.‎. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKC

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYKC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move DYKC-AM to this title and delete redirect DYKC-TV which has no mention at target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Shhhnotsoloud. BD2412 T 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DYNU-FM and add hatnote. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYNU

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYNU-FM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two entries. Redirect to DYNU-FM and use hatnote {{redirect|DYNU|the TV station|UNTV}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and hatnote per Shhhnotsoloud. BD2412 T 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al-Hamar

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

Declined prod. Could not find any sources in google news and google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. I would reconsider if there is anything in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources which passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Nothing is found in Google search. Mekomo (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. and redirect the page to said target after merging. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Cave (Gibraltar)

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

Redirect toGibraltar Nature Reserve where it is located. Not indepentely notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge absent sources being found (did a light check) into Mediterranean Steps or Gibraltar Nature Reserve -- noting there are many caves listed in List of caves in Gibraltar, so as a whole the caves are probably notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect is fine by me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content into Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Redirect this page as well, but since this is a disambiguation, perhaps many people would not even use this redirect. Zero Google News results. Less than 110 Google Search results. Google Books turns up some false positives but I suspect only the first link (The Transactions of the Cave Research Group) discusses this Spider Cave in Gibraltar, and even so only mentions it 5 times in the book. So, does not appear to pass WP:GNG, any content can go into Gibraltar Nature Reserve. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. asilvering (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina's Fissure

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

Redirect or merge to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Not independently notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Very little coverage in sources, does not appear separately notable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi

Please could you clarify what you mean by 'lack of independent sourcing'. The majority of the citations are from independent sources including Sky News, The Independent and The Financial Times. Certain points have been substantiated via the company's homepage and their annual report but this has also been done on HomeServe, Legal & General and Admiral Group.

This is not supposed to act as a press release or as a marketing tool but appreciate your point. Would it benefit from adding in any new sections?

Thanks in advance for your feedback! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article in the independent, for example - the many, many external links in the article are via Linkby which indicates that Domestic and General are paying for them. Which is why there's so many external links - you wouldn't normally see that many in a newspaper article. It's an advertorial, not independent coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for flagging this. I have removed the independent article as it is not an unbiased, reliable source. Ecwdgbt (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A prior discussion from 2018-9, touching on COI in the instance at the time but also on notability, can be read here. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is an odd one: a firm over 100 years old, whose products are used by 1/3 of UK households according to a 2019 Bloomberg item("Abu Dhabi Fund to Buy 30% of Domestic & General Group"), previously a plc but taken private then changing hands several times. But the problem is that despite their name recognition and near-ubiquity in domestic appliance warranty, there's not a lot of coverage outside announcements of the firm changing hands, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am close to saying "But it's notable!" but unless better coverage can be found, would have to say it falls short on WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback!

Here are three topics aside from the firm taking hands that have led to coverage that I would argue isn't trivial.

Offices

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/domestic--general-hopes-create-5084777

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/domestic-general-flexible-working-london-hq-revamp-wfh-b942634.html

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/big-nottingham-employer-domestic-general-7422086

Partnerships

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-five-year-aftercare-deal-with-marks-electrical/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/panasonic-and-dg-sign-a-six-year-deal/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-three-year-deal-with-lg/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/hughes-partners-with-domestic-and-general/

https://retailtimes.co.uk/domestic-general-extends-deal-with-john-lewis/

Acquisitions

https://www.cityam.com/american-adventure-continues-for-domestic-general-as-it-makes-second-acquisition/

https://www.postonline.co.uk/news/7955324/dg-aims-to-create-uber-like-claims-experience

https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20230629.html

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/domestic-general-group-to-acquire-after-inc

In addition to this, the CEO Matthew Crummack has garnered lots of coverage over the years (see below):

https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/former-gocompare-ceo-donates-major-sum-create-opportunities-students-need

https://newsnreleases.com/2021/08/04/matthew-crummack-joins-domestic-general-as-ceo/

https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/governance-management/matthew-crummack

https://www.postonline.co.uk/personal/7955323/big-interview-matthew-crummack-domestic-general

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/16007578

Let me know what you think or if the article would benefit from any new sections to showcase its notability?

Thank you! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the weight to be placed on items about offices, partnerships and acquisitions, see the Standard notices points under WP:CORPTRIV. The City AM piece is bylined, but is ultimately a summary of announcement PR quotes. Coverage about the present CEO is relative to that person more than the company. You ask about what can "showcase" notability; in a way that is indicative of the problem of an article contributed by an editor with connection to the company at present. What is lacking is the longer perspective: substantial coverage about the firm's history. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPTRIV is only for routine announcements - some of the coverage goes beyond announcements, or is additional coverage after the coverage of an announcement. Peter James (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It would be helpful if some of these new sources brought to the discussion were assessed to see if they can contribute to establishing some level of notability for this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As AllyD said, it's an odd one. Quick version: the company is of such significance that we owe our readers an article if we can possibly scrape one together, and the sourcing, while not great, is good enough to scrape. Longer version: we're here to provide information, and it's quite reasonable that the more-than-10% of the UK population whose household appliances are insured through D&G might be curious about the company and its history. We couldn't make an article if there was no information about the company, or if we felt there was a significant chance that the information was false (this is the basis for avoiding non-independent sources). But we already apply some nuance there: non-contentious, factual stuff can be sourced from interviews; academics' institutional CVs are assumed to be factually true. In this instance we have useful information, such as the company being founded by the wiki-notable S. W. Copley, and the lineage of the company via various other notable companies. It's unlikely the basic statistics have been falsified. We have a story to tell, the story is not contentious, so the article passes muster - at least in the context of insurance companies, which tend to generate a lot less sourcing than even the most trivial of short-lived pizza outlets. And, frankly, it would look weird and embarrassing if we had nothing to say on the subject of D&G. Elemimele (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as many of the sources cited are primary sources. Ohers that could be reliable failed to provide WP:SIGCOV. This company fails WP:NORG. Mekomo (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is significant enough - there is also https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/house-garden/household-appliances/domestic-and-general-insurance-repair-b2486660.html. Peter James (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Elemimele on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a public listed company and generally they get articles, but more so its been going more than 100 years. There is bound to be mountain of archival material on it that can be used as sources. Its a bit a promo can be cleaned up. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joline Godfrey

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The one book review given is fine, there's also a brief review here [33]. Should be able to pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's discussed here also, briefly [34]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:AUTHOR. I added a couple of additional reviews. Could use a bit of clean up and there are more sources out there. Nnev66 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 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.