Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 30	October 02 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua McGrath

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. References are woefully inadequate. Deb (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article had one article as a source, so I searched for others in reliable secondary sources. I found none. His coverage is limited to the Golden Skate, and the only other content is either self-published or likely self-published. Kerbyki (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Piperno

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did a quick search of Canadian newspapers, nothing comes up. Gnews brings up not much else. The sourcing now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no press coverage. --Taking off shortly (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jered Guzman

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilla Gainetdinova

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. No senior-level competitions of any kind. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Trams in Amsterdam. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam tram line 12

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. This is about a particular run taken by a tram. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is highly notable, and as AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article should only be deleted if its quality is so poor that a complete rewrite (TNT) is necessary. Unfortunately, that is the case here. The article currently presents information in a disorganized and erratic manner. While the absence of an introduction is a clear issue, it's actually the least of the concerns. If that were the only problem, I would add the introduction immediately.

There is some good news. The article on Nlwiki, despite Nlwiki's general reputation for inconsistent quality, is well-written. If the Enwiki article is rewritten based on the Nlwiki version, or even parts of it, it should be saved. Please feel free to ping me if that route is taken. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trams in Amsterdam: where it is already covered in as much detail as is warranted. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirecting to Trams in Amsterdam?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the "trams in Amsterdam" article seems fine, it's mentioned there. This doesn't appear to be a notable line otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Nominator removed deletion request and draftifed instead, resulting in speedy deletion of the original page. Procedural close of AfD. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horror mystery film

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

AI-generated, poorly formatted article ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 21:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not AI generated, and i've since formatted the article better. There is no proof whatsoever that this was AI-generated. Even if it WAS, the content in this article is accurate, and far from miss-leading, so there is absolutely no reason to delete this article Tooommyharris (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the AI-sounding phrasing, it has no sources and numerous formatting errors. I have moved the article to the Draft namespace while you work on it. I appreciate your desire to contribute to Wikipedia; please take a look at the other horror subgenre articles to see how it might be formatted and written. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pranjal Dahiya

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

A WP:PROMO biography of an Indian singer/TikTok personality. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC and frankly WP:V with universally unreliable sources. Even after an editor expanded the piece and declined the PROD, the sources are her own official bios (here, here), a spam page on a furniture website (?), a user-generated genealogy site, a dead link that was never archived, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and gossip page mentions in unbylined, unreliable sources per WP:NEWSORGINDIA (here, here, here). My WP:BEFORE search turns up a few similar unbylined sources in Indian tabloid pages but no independent, reliable WP:SIGCOV to contribute to any notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom with good source analysis. Subject fails WP:NACTOR with no significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources on subject's achievement and career, worthy of notice. Page also reads as WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Delete or Redirect to the Music of Haryana I gave it a try to improve, although agree with the nominator. Del per not meeting the WP:DEPTH and WP:SYNTH.®asteem Talk
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neto (footballer, born 1987)

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

One of the worst sourced articles I have ever seen, can not find any other sources fulfilling WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Deleted long ago, even though guidelines then were much more lenient. Geschichte (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The athlete started to play as a futsal player in the Brazilian National League, but has no WP:SIGCOV or notability, just WP:MILL ([1], [2]). Svartner (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato Nakamura

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

7 games in Japan's second league, nowhere near meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Was kept long ago under guidelines that are now scrapped. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – According to Japanese Wikipedia, he was arrested for violating child pornography prohibition law. This is more like WP:ROUTINE and not significant coverage in my opinion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides, with the Delete views carrying more P&G weight than the more numerous Keep views. However, I wasn't able to see a rough consensus either way. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Goddard

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage, just stats/routine news. Giant Snowman 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s got significant coverage from what I can see. Stop pointlessly tagging pages for deletion - becoming quite pathetic now. 2A06:5902:180C:5800:59C9:B142:4513:9C80 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing from your IP, EnglishDude. Giant Snowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I see at least one example of WP:SIGCOV in a reliable source (Straits Times - ironically it's from the very beginning of his career) and that's enough combined with other coverage for a WP:NSPORT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not enough. Giant Snowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is for WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - it says that "an athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources" (my emphasis). Giant Snowman 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at least one" - and that even doing that "does not indicate notability". Giant Snowman 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, Germany, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough coverage. One article from the Strait Times mentioned above is not enough. Simione001 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT is a little looser than WP:GNG. Unlike with GNG, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Combine the one article with the extensive non-SIGCOV available, it's a pass on the SNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, a WP:NSPORT pass isn't enough for AfD. See Q2 in the FAQ section. -- asilvering (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've missed that question up entirely up to this point. (And Q1 notwithstanding, I don't fully understand why we have SNGs for sports at all if everything ultimately has to come back to GNG.) Delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and I missed your reply. The "why" here (from my perspective, anyway) is a little bit "because team GNG-only haven't so conclusively won the argument that the SNGs are totally deprecated" and a little bit "so you can guess whether a subject is notable or not without having to go look for coverage" (for example, when you're doing NPP or so on). -- asilvering (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficiently referenced to pass in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, only one source has currently been found with SIGCOV. That is not enough to pass GNG. Sources must be multiple. Have you found any others? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a disagreement among participating editors here on how to read WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the !vote says this passes GNG, which is incorrect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Lancashire Telegraph articles are a RS. I found this [3] and [4], should be enough for an article, in addition to what's in the article now for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed those early on. The Irish Independent is just a long set of quotes from Goddard's manager with no actual reporting; I don't think it counts as independent SIGCOV. The Telegraph article is WP:ROUTINE transfer coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
transfer coverage that's about the player, still counts Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, standard transfer coverage is definitely classed as WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 17:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that the Lancashire Telegraph article is WP:ROUTINE. This is a football player for a professional club. If this player is notable, then all club players are notable. Could well be WP:TOOSOON in that the player could become notable in the future but there is no way to know that. Does not currently meet GNG Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the slightly unique nature of the LOI Premier Division, I believe it should meet the notability guidelines set by WikiProject Football with some reasonable flexibility. Excluding University College Dublin (UCD), all the other clubs in the league operate on a fully professional basis. This is a situation where a professional player (Goddard) is making appearances against professional players at professional clubs.

While the guidelines suggest that a player is generally notable if they’ve appeared in a fully professional league (which technically isn’t the case here due to UCD), surely these are guidelines - not strict policies? Shouldn’t we allow some flexibility in cases like this, where the vast majority of the league is professional? We're not disregarding the guidelines but rather applying them in a way that stays true to their purpose—recognising players competing at a professional level.

In addition to above sources, there's Dundalk Democrat coverage, further Irish Independent talking about Goddard's performances, BBC Sport match coverage. In fact, if you dive a bit deeper into Google, there's many more sources that mention Goodard by name in match reports from sufficient sources. Josh (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Match coverage is not SIGCOV, it s routine. Playing at professional level is irrelevant, WP:NFOOTBALL has been abolished. All that matters is coverage. Giant Snowman 09:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per users above. Young player with ongoing pro career who already has sources and will get more playing in one of Irelands most high profile clubs. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - borderline, the Lancashire Telegraph and Dundalk Democrat coverage isn't stellar but across the various articles I do think it adds up to something together with the Straits Times, and the articles do include biographical information of the subject beyond direct quotes or signing details. I don't quite buy the argument that if Goddard is notable then any professional player is notable; I've definitely come across many professional players who have less coverage available (and whose articles do not typically survive AfD). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksarayspor

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

Although sources I found seem to show it existed I doubt they are enough to show it notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – A team that alternated the second and third tier should in theory have some WP:SIGCOV in Turkish, but without sources to be presented, I vote for deleting. Svartner (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleavor

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

I always raise an eyebrow slightly when a new minor Pokemon gets an article, but I try to give it a fair shake because there are often unique things that the press latch onto, like coral bleaching for Galarian Corsola. Unfortunately, after reading the entirety of the sources, I am left unconvinced that Kleavor is standalone notable. Most of the sources are simple trivial mentions in top-10 lists alongside numerous other Pokemon that get equal billing, or trivial mentions in papers about other subjects (namely, analysis of Hisui/Sinnoh as a region).

The TheGamer article is easily the largest mention of Kleavor, but, as criticism goes, it's pretty low-quality, and written in a Kotaku-esque manner where the journalist makes a glorified forum post. For example, she constantly asks "what's a Noble Pokemon", and while I don't know either, a simple 2-second Google search would clear that up instead of using it as a "ya darn kids and your Pokeymens" comedy gag. Overall, not fantastic analysis for the "best" source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Because this has been brought up in the discussion - there is a scholarly article on the Pokemon by a visual design researcher that is not a trivial mention at all. I neglected to mention this in the AfD and for that I apologize. Nevertheless, it is unclear how much the paper has been cited, if at all. It is also my belief that even if it is declared a WP:RS, my opinion on the notability wouldn't change. However, I must mention it here for complete disclosure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Keep

I've been extremely patient with your behavior, but I feel these summaries are getting outright rude and predatory to the point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's fine if you don't, but don't blow smoke about "trivial sources" when the article has an eleven page entry in a published journal discussing its design (titled, no less, Visual Design Analysis of Kleavor Character in Pokémon Legends: Arceus Game). It has a full paragraph in another published journal dedicated to its design and how it helps teach geoscience about Japan. It has a full article in Inside, a major Japanese gaming publication, going over the origin of its Japanese name and examination of its meaning. TheGamer article you're so quick to dismiss goes into detail why Henley, the website's editor in chief, dislikes the design, a statement she's echoed across other articles mind you even when singing it's praises. There is more than enough to establish WP:THREE here, especially for a Pokemon, no less one barely two years old in the franchise.
Additionally, WP:SIGCOV at no point states lists cannot nor should not be used: every entry cited there offers tangible thoughts about the subject and unique thoughts in regards to one another. SIGCOV in no way says that the article's entire subject matter needs to be related to the subject. We are well past the days of 1UP and GameDaily's single blurb lines about why something is "cool!"
Lastly, I want to call out that your frequent use of AfD, in light of avenues of discussion or working with other editors when several editors have reached out to you, has been detrimental overall to the video game project if not the characters task force alone. Editors are concerned about starting articles because they dread you will AfD them out of the blue. To boot, you could easily see this was up for WP:GAN, and rather than open a line of discussion, you approached this in not only a rude manner but absolutely zero correspondence with the editor working on it. Editors should not be stuck dreading their own work, let alone worried about wasting their time because you take notice. Good day sir.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, that the nominator identified the discussion of Kleavor in academic papers, one of which spans 11 pages, as trivial is one of two potential issues. Firstly, it may be a WP:CIR concern by virtue of not doing due diligence to properly examine the content of the sources before nominating it, which is deeply concerning for someone who regularly involves themselves in AfDs and AfCs. The other angle I see is that the nominator may be trying to make the AfD seem stronger than it actually is by downplaying the actual strength of the sourcing to get the article deleted, which is once again a serious issue for me. The Inside Games and TheGamer sources are clearly acceptable examples of sigcov, and Kleavor is given coverage in other sources otherwise. It clears more than WP:THREE with stronger sigcov, and frankly, TheGamer source is a stronger source than sources I have seen the nominator support in the past as demonstrations of notability. It makes me unsure what the nominator considers a "glorified forum post" (not a deletion rationale), given their defense of sources such as this. I bring this up because I question the judgment of the nominator in dismissing a piece of sigcov because of tone, and frankly, "I don't like this comedy gag about Noble Pokémon" is an extremely, extremely weak reason to dismiss a source from the website's editor-in-chief. Simply put, we do not have a policy or guideline that suggests that an article's tone impacts the usability of the content of a source - not on its own, anyway. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really not a fan of the ad-hominem attacks going on from Kung-Fu Man and Cukie Gherkin here. I get it, you worked hard on the article, but please argue on the merits of the sources rather than casting baseless aspersions that I am doing spurious AfDs.

To respond to the claim of an "11 page source" existing and that I failed to perform WP:BEFORE, I will add that it appears, at least to me, to be a student paper from a program on visual design studies. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, just because something appeared in an e-journal does not immediately imply reliability unless it has been heavily cited by others, and the fact that you are putting it forth as though such a thing is obvious demonstrates issues with source analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with this article, I was critical of the personal standards you applied in the case of TheGamer and the lack of due diligence to identify the scholarly source as being a trivial degree of focus on the subject. If you had presented the argument that this source was an issue because it's allegedly a student paper, that would not elicit the concern over your claim of trivial coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the paper in question, Muh Ariffudin Islam, the co-author of the cited piece, has over twenty published journals according to Google Scholar, several of which also in English according to researchgate, as well as having his own laboratory at the university. I will stress that your whole initial argument was the paper consisted of a "trivial mention", which is clearly not the case, and even after the co-author can be demonstrated as having expertise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other arguments. I will state that while I did help with setting up the article, I only did so out of a confidence toward the subject's notability. The fact there's multiple verifiable sources focusing entirely on the subject- including several research papers- analyzing Kleavor's design, says a lot to me about the notability of the subject. I do feel the arguments brought up about the nom are better off on the nom's talk page than here, but excluding that I do feel notability is soundly verifiable, and there is a good Wikipedia:THREE here at minimum. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm incline to agree with the rationale presented by the article's creator in regards to why this article should be kept. Upon closer inspection of the article, the reception more than passes WP:THREE and further more, doesn't clash with WP:VG/S. The critiques made in the TheGamer article are still as valid regardless of the wordage/vocabulary use here. And as for why the clueless-ness about the Noble Pokemon is there in the first place, that is down to the fact that Kleavor had only recently been announced and with that so was the concept of "Noble Pokemon" (the game would release 4 months after Kleavor's reveal) and at the time the only information Game Freak gave was that Noble Pokemon were "to hold power not held by regular Pokémon". Not that having a quip about not knowing what Noble Pokemon was should diminish the contents of the source to begin with. As for the papers, I believe them to be substantial and not mere trivial mentions as is mentioned in the deletion rationale. And for why the papers should be kept regardless of them being student papers, I'm incline once again to agree with the rationale posted by KFM and Cukie as they have proven, at least to me, that these papers are have substantial notability due to their author. Captain Galaxy 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - putting aside any arguments over the nominator's tone and conduct, the article most certainly meets WP:THREE already with the TheGamer article, the Inside article, and the journal analysis. As an aside, Wikipedia:Notability states directly that something can be declared significant coverage even if it is not the main topic of the source material. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Margaret Keesing

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marie Margaret Keesing

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [5] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This paper from 2015 seems to give her a proper discussion [6]. I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Social science, England, New Zealand, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede 66 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge: weak delete because I agree with the points made above about women in science being overshadowed by men. However, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as much as I would like to. I think the alternative of an article merge would be good, but would require a rewrite of both articles to create a "joint" article for the couple. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 15:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intel 471

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

Fails WP:NCORP for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; sources both in-article and in WP:BEFORE are a blend of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, WP:INTERVIEWs, WP:TRADES, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Delaware. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are all routine announcements, interviews, brief mentions, etc., the kind of sources that fall well short of WP:ORGCRIT. The "fairly notable" comment in the edit summary is puzzling. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Police women's volleyball team

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

What little coverage there is in reliable sources is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPath^talk 13:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Volleyball, and Nepal. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May i know to concrete reason why this page is nominated for the deletion?. Nepal Police Club currently competing in Central Asian Club Volleyball Championship and many people are searching about the club. I think it's more than enough to have page for the club. NiseEdits (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A popular subject ("many people are searching about the club") doesn't establish notability - independent, reliable sources do. LR.127 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club-level volleyball in any nation (outside Argentina, Brazil, Europe or former Eastern Bloc nations) generally doesn't meet notability. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - reason being that I can't read local media from non-English sources and there are some in English which suggests that there may be more in other languages. Examples 1 and 2. I would like to see more good quality independent sources (particularly in other local languages) to be sure the GNG standard has been met. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 15:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams (Bingham)

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

Notability not established with significant sources. Prod removal claimed "artworks are usually accepted with one good source" – besides this being completely false, the single citation has only a single sentence on it and is not a good source toward GNG at all. The only sources I can find are routine data generic to any painting and no substantive coverage about the piece. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to many sources covering the painting:
- Portraits of the presidents: the National Portrait Gallery pp. 14-15 (p. 34): "The Missouri-born artist George Caleb Bingham painted the original version of this portrait in the spring of 1844 in his temporary hut-like studio situated at the bottom of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Bingham would later gain much acclaim for his depictions of life on the transMississippi frontier. At the moment, however, he was an unproven quantity, and Adams’s willingness to sit for him stemmed largely from the fact that Bingham was sharing his studio with painter John Cranch, who was an Adams kinsman."
- The Life Portraits of John Quincy Adams (p. 13)
- Portraits of John Quincy Adams and his wife (pp. 231-235): "The third example catalogued by Bloch (Fig. 100) is considerably different from the other two but undoubtedly derived from one of them. Adams is shown, turned slightly to his right and looking to the viewer's left." (And so on)
- George Caleb Bingham: Missouri's famed painter and forgotten politician (p. 130) has a paragraph on "Portrait of John Quincy Adams (1844-1850)"
- Bingham's Portrait of Adams Owned by Rollins (Columbia Missourian 1929-09-28).
- Suggests Need of Preserving The Works of Missouri's Great, But Almost Forgotten, Painter The Kansas City Star, 1932-11-13.
- A Pioneer Preacher. St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1910-12-11: "Of these the one of John Quincy Adams, president of the United States, is probably the most famous. It was painted on a slab of walnut wood."
the article should be expanded (I'm not an expert on painting but I may make a go at extending it sometime... looks like it's been expanded with different sources than I found). Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources used in the article come from multiple books and two different news organiations. In conjunction with others mentioned by Skynxnex, this article has enough coverage to meet notability. Demt1298 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per recent edits and Skynxnex's source list above. Obviously meets GNG and other criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Skynxnex and others. A case of WP:HEY, passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Spain. toweli (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it; no need for another potentially endless list of trivial examples. —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss. I do not understand how there are just 8 articles of exonyms right now in AfD, each one with its own discussion, when the same reasons can be applied to the 92 articles that populate Category:Lists of exonyms, or at least, to the 43 mentioned in {{Exonyms per language}}. It would not be fair to delete these 8 articles and allow Greek exonyms, Spanish exonyms or Dutch exonyms to survive when they are essentially the same concept of list in a different language. In my opinion the proposals should be centralized into a single discussion of all articles, the navbox and the categories. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 11:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been attempts to group all those articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus. Additionally, some of those (but probably not most) might be notable. toweli (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And some of the reasons I gave don't apply to some of the lists, not all of them are unreferenced (there may be at least a book/link in the references section), not all of them are indiscriminate (i.e. they focus on a specific region, like Hungarian toponyms in Prekmurje). They're probably still not wiki-notable, though. toweli (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all exonym lists are equal. I would preserve, for example, German names for places formerly in Germany or the Habsburg empire; or lists that concentrate on nontrivial differences. —Tamfang (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well, yes, this does seem to be both indiscriminate and uncited, and looking far too much like a bit of dictionary. That doesn't mean that a proper article on the formation of Catalan exonyms would not be of interest, if reliable sources can be found for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klevisa Ymeri

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

Putting this up for the community to judge. This was nominated as an attack page; I don't think it's really that, given that all these negative points seem well-verified, but I am wondering if this rises to the required level of notability for someone who, apparently, is noteworthy only for negative things. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a encyclopedia not a news media. It should not contact articles about private individuals. For that open a news website and fill it with entries similar to it. Do you want to feed all the Wikipedia with recent news. Car accidents happen every minute everywhere around the world. Please know what this page is about. Due to some of you people, this website has become the most unreliable and the least scientific as it was years before, when only scientific or intelectual content was present. 146.0.16.235 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we have coverage about cat memes, so this isn't necessarily the case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't have this article, but it never had only "scientific or intelectual [sic] content". PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see much coverage from before this last incident. Plenty of coverage about the accident, but I don't it meets criminal notability. She doesn't appear to have had much coverage otherwise; typical "pretty girl does stuff online" photospreads and brief mentions, which might help sell magazines/get website clicks, but don't rise to our level of notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Crime, Travel and tourism, Fashion, Internet, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sufficient notability. The only thing she has appeared in the media for is the accident, which itself is not enough to justify an article. As for her social media presence, there are zillions with a larger followers base that do not have an article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page was CSD tagged under G10 - as there's an ongoing AfD discussion and the negative information is sourced, I've removed the tag (I did say A10 in my edit summary, I meant G10). - Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not criminally notable, or notable as an internet celebrity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vision Gran Turismo#Aston Martin DP100 Vision Gran Turismo. The nomination mentioned that redirecting to the Gran Turismo 6 would not be appropriate (WP:UNDUE). An editor advised using Vision Gran Turismo where the car is already discussed as a target for redirection. No votes to keep. (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DP-100

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. Redirect not needed as the car only plays a very minor role in the game's plot (and it's not even a must to see or drive it.) Sekundenlang (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vision Gran Turismo#Aston Martin DP100 Vision Gran Turismo - While there are some various news bits on the car, they all appear to be from the same June/July 2014 period of time, reporting on its initial announcement and appearance. There is no real coverage that I can find beyond those announcement type articles that show any kind of notability. That said, it is already covered at the main Vision Gran Turismo article, so this should, at the very least, be redirected to the appropriate section there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. There are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this, at most. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1962 Aral Sea Li-2 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Kazakhstan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per amount of fatalities and GNG errors listed above, its a poorly constructed article with alot of dead links and only two sources referenced. Lolzer3k 14:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese exonyms

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

Indiscriminate largely unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Malta. toweli (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another potentially endless list of examples of the trivial fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two previous AFDs, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since Malta never had sovereignty over these areas and the Maltese language has not been spread there, this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK1/3, erroneous/absent deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newland Digital Technology

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

The Newland Digital Technology article might warrant deletion if it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources that confirm its notability beyond its own promotional material. If the article predominantly relies on self-published sources or fails to demonstrate notable impact in the broader technology sector, it may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG). RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ for failure to state a deletion rationale. "If it lacks" and "if the article" are not words that suggest an argument for deletion. Furthermore, the wording of this nomination does not disclose whether other sources were identified during WP:BEFORE searches. If there are flaws that cannot be resolved with other sources then you can explain them so others can respond intelligently. Oblivy (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator sounds like they are saying the article predominantly relies on SPS and fails GNG. It looks like English isn't their first language and even if it doesn't sound right, SPS and GNG should be something to easily refute or acknowledge. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a fair reading, but we have an article with 24 sources. Are none of them good? Are there other sources that can be identified on a reasonable search, per Wikipedia:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS? I don't understand why WP:BURDEN comes into it. Surely a user can't show up at AfD and compel other users to refute a vague assertion that there aren't sufficient sources? That may be easy, or it may not (a proper search is going to require looking at Chinese media as well). Oblivy (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article states:
Founded in 1994, Newland NPT mainly manufactures payment terminals, PIN pads, and point of sale (POS) hardware and software. In 2016, it was ranked the third POS terminal supplier worldwide after Ingenico and Verifone. In 2017, the company overtook Verifone and became the second-largest POS terminal manufacturer in the world.
This company is clearly notable. I agree with Oblivy (talk · contribs) that this AfD nomination should not have been made. Editor time is expensive, particularly for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China topics where there is a very limited pool of editors with the Chinese-language expertise to search for sources. I endorse what Oblivy said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duanju. Cunard (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "新大陆(000997)：第三方支付盈利改善海外战略持续推进" [Newland (000997): Improvement in Third-Party Payment Profits as Overseas Strategy Continues to Advance] (in Chinese). Huaan Securities [zh]. 2024-09-25. Archived from the original on 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Futu.
  The analyst report notes: "公司主营业务分为智能终端集群和行业数字化集群两个板块。智能终端集群包括POS 机生产销售业务。2023 年，根据尼尔森报告，新大陆支付全球出货量排名全球第一。行业数字化集群，包括商户运营及增值服务业务。公司2023 年支付服务业务交易总量超2.5 万亿元，行业领先。"
  From Google Translate: "The company's main business is divided into two sectors: intelligent terminal clusters and industry digital clusters. The intelligent terminal cluster includes POS machine production and sales business. In 2023, according to the Nielsen report, New World Payments ranked first in the world in terms of global shipments. Industry digital clusters include merchant operations and value-added service businesses. The company's payment service business transaction volume in 2023 will exceed 2.5 trillion yuan, leading the industry."
2. "新大陆(000997)：国内外开启双丰收期待后续业绩持续高增" [Newland (000997): Achieving Dual Harvests Domestically and Internationally, Anticipating Continued High Growth in Future Performance] (in Chinese). Everbright Securities. 2023-08-28. Archived from the original on 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Futu.
  The analyst report notes: "公司积极布局感知AI、认知AI、人脸识别算法等多领域：在感知AI 维度，公司为中国铁塔等运营商推出边缘智能网关产品和专用AI 模组，同时布局边缘网关芯片与设备的国产化覆盖，构建可信边缘计算生态。"
  From Google Translate: "The company is actively developing perceptual AI, cognitive AI, face recognition algorithms and other fields: in the perceptual AI dimension, the company has launched edge intelligent gateway products and dedicated AI modules for operators such as China Tower, while also deploying domestically produced edge gateway chips and equipment. coverage and build a trusted edge computing ecosystem."
3. "新大陆(000997)：收单与硬件双重赋能利润端快速增长" [Newland (000997): Dual Empowerment from Acquiring and Hardware Drives Rapid Profit Growth] (in Chinese). Haitong Securities. 2023-01-23. Archived from the original on 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Futu.
  The analyst report notes: "各大POS 厂商的排名发生较大变动，其中，新大陆以8.3%的市场份额跃居全球第一，出货量同比增长接近10%。随着全球化战略的不断推进，为更好地满足当地市场需求，公司持续加大全球化投入，先后在中国香港、巴西、新加坡等地设立分公司，并在全球范围内建立了若干个业务发展服务中心，不断提升本地化的服务能力。拥有国内外4家工业4.0 智能化生产基地，凭借高研发投入，强供应链交付，全场景建设的核心竞争力，已为全球客户提供立体化全过程服务，将支付网络延伸至世界各地。"
  From Google Translate: "The rankings of major POS manufacturers have undergone major changes. Among them, New World ranked first in the world with a market share of 8.3%, and its shipments increased by nearly 10% year-on-year. With the continuous advancement of the globalisation strategy, in order to better meet the needs of the local market, the company continues to increase investment in globalisation, has successively established branches in Hong Kong, Brazil, Singapore and other places, and has established several businesses around the world. Develop service centers and continuously improve localised service capabilities. It has 4 Industry 4.0 intelligent production bases at home and abroad. With its core competitiveness of high R&D investment, strong supply chain delivery, and full-scenario construction, it has provided three-dimensional full-process services to global customers and extended its payment network to all parts of the world."
4. Tang, Wei 唐维 (2022-09-14). "新大陆：工业时代向数字时代演变一切皆有可能" [Newland: The Transition from the Industrial Era to the Digital Era—Anything is Possible.]. Securities Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  The detailed profile notes: "同样作为最早参与到数字人民币早期技术研究和场景应用研究的企业，近几年伴随数字人民币试点的不断推进，新大陆数字人民币业务实现深化布局，公司助力央行数研所、2.0层银行机构，携手华为等产业合作方开展了系列前瞻性的技术研究、标准制定和产学研用生态建设，取得了丰富的技术积累和经验，截至目前公司共取得数字人民币专利及产品著作权近十项。"
  From Google Translate: "As one of the first companies to participate in early technology research and scenario application research on digital renminbi, with the continuous advancement of digital renminbi pilots in recent years, the digital renminbi business in the Newland has deepened its layout. The company has assisted the Central Bank Digital Research Institute and 2.0-layer banking institutions to join hands with Huawei and other industrial partners have carried out a series of forward-looking technical research, standard formulation and industry-university-research ecological construction, and gained rich technical accumulation and experience. So far, the company has obtained nearly ten digital RMB patents and product copyrights."
5. Lin, Kan 林侃 (2020-10-15). "闽企发布新一代二维码安全解码芯片" [Fujian Enterprise Releases Next-Generation QR Code Security Decoding Chip]. Fujian Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  The article notes: "新大陆是亚太第一、全球第二的支付终端供应商，同时也是信息感知识别设备销量全球前五的唯一一家中国企业，是全球掌握二维码核心技术的企业之一，拥有全球首颗二维码安全解码芯片、全球首颗数字公民安全解码芯片。以解码芯片为支点，新大陆在识读模组、支付设备、识读设备等领域自主研发出系列产品。"
  From Google Translate: "Newland is the number one payment terminal supplier in the Asia-Pacific and the number two in the world. It is also the only Chinese company in the top five in the world in terms of sales of information sensing and identification equipment. It is one of the companies in the world that masters the core technology of QR codes and owns the world's first QR code. Code security decoding chip, the world's first digital citizen security decoding chip. With decoding chips as the fulcrum, Newland has independently developed a series of products in the fields of reading modules, payment equipment, and reading equipment."
6. Chen, Meiling (2017-08-30). "Fujian pilot free trade zone-based companies look to go global". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  The article notes: "The worlds' third-largest point-of-sale terminal supplier, Fujian Newland Payment Technology, announced in August it will enter the Brazilian market. ... The company is a major subsidiary of Fujian-based, publicly listed giant Newland Science and Technology Group, an expert on internet of things and wireless telecommunication technologies. The company's sales of POS terminals surpassed 5.8 million units in 2016, up 6 percent year-on-year, according to a report released by United States market research company Nilson last month. Fujian Newland Payment Technology ranked No 3 on the global list by POS terminal shipments, after France-based Ingenico and US-based Verifone, the report said."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Newland Digital Technology (simplified Chinese: 新大陆数字技术股份有限公司; traditional Chinese: 新大陸數位技術股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXISTS based on multiple in-depth sources identified by @Cunard. In particular the analyst reports from Hua'an, Haitong, and Everbright Securities are SIRS (company is publicly listed, refer to WP:LISTED). The Fujian Daily and China Daily articles are not substantial but attest to real-world notability, as do articles like this from Reuters.

Keep, with sources suggesting notability, sufficiently referenced and well-written with no suitable merge target. Klbrain (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Elf on the Shelf. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumistella Company

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

The article may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, as there could be insufficient coverage by independent, reliable sources that substantiate its significance beyond promotional material. If the article relies heavily on self-published or non-independent sources, it could fail to satisfy the general notability guideline (GNG) RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ for failure to state a deletion rationale. As with the deletion nomination for Newland Digital Technology, created three minutes after this one, words like "could" and "may" are not arguments for deletion. If there are other sources, you can find them by following the instructions at WP:BEFORE. Only once a clear policy-based argument has been made should the community be required to respond to a proposal to delete an article.
Redirect to The Elf on the Shelf -- not withdrawing my objection to the conditional language of the rationale - in my opinion no way to start a deletion discussion, although candidly this is the least problematic of the three rapid-succession deletions started by @RodrigoIPacce on 1 Oct.
I'm impressed by the coverage of the company itself, particularly the WABE and NY Post coverage, and I don't see a specific policy argument for deletion solely based on it having one-product. But the coverage itself seems premised on the product, so based on a very broad reading of NOTINHERITED I tend to agree with @MrSchimpf this should be redirected rather than deleted. If they diversify later, or if further sources are found supporting non-EotS notability, the history will be available to build upon. Oblivy (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Elf on the Shelf The property that built the company is notable, but the company certainly doesn't meet N on its own as all they do is items around the property. WP:AGF Oblivy; I understood exactly what the nom was getting at even if it was a copied rationale. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, @MrSchimpf I don't think I was suggesting bad faith but rather WP:CIR. Your argument could easily have been made in the nomination, acknowledging the fact that there are high quality sources in the arficle but they all relate to a single product, and that there are no other sources found on a reasonable search which would change that conclusion, and that there is a policy/guideline that says something about single-product companies (I'm assuming there is one). Oblivy (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MapTiler

AfDs for this article:

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

due to a lack of significant notability, as it may not have sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources beyond promotional content or self-published material. Additionally, the article might not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) if it lacks independent verifiable sources demonstrating RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. See comments on the other two deletions created by this nominator today. To the nominator, please stop until you are able to create a well-formed deletion rationale. Oblivy (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a basic read of the sources involves awards and PR for the subject, certainly not anything that establishes notability beyond just a circle of map industry blogs and VC smoke-blowing, and purposefully consumer sources aren't going to be found as it's pure backend software the average person will never notice outside a logo watermark in the corner. Nom's rationale was well-understood despite it being boilerplate. Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXISTS as it has received significant coverage in at least two independent reliable sources:

Cascón-Katchadourian, Jesús-Daniel, and Antonio-Ángel Ruiz-Rodríguez. “Descripción y Valoración Del Software MapTiler: Del Mapa Escaneado a La Capa Interactiva Publicada En La Web.” El profesional de la informacion 25.6 (2016): 970-. (Description and evaluation of MapTiler software: From scanned map to interactive layer for Web publishing) (non-paywall available at [7])
Cascón-Katchadourian J. y Alberich-Pascual J. (2021). La Georreferenciación de Cartografía Antigua en los Sistemas de Información Geográficos (SIG): Revisión, Análisis y Estudio comparativo de Softwares de Georreferenciación (The Georeferencing of Old Cartography in Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Review, Analysis and Comparative Study of Georeferencing Software). Revista General de Información y Documentación, 31(1), 437-460. https://doi.org/10.5209/rgid.76965

Also worth noting that although Fleet, Christopher; Pridal, Petr (2012-11-29). "Open source technologies for delivering historical maps online - case studies at the National Library of Scotland". The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries. 22 (3): 247. doi:10.18352/lq.8052, currently linked in the article, was co-authored by Petr Pridal who created MapTiler as GDAL, it's an article from a peer reviewed library science journal, not PR smoke-blowing circle of map industry blog etc. Oblivy (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oblivy. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Oblivy. A speedy keep would have been warranted as well due to a malformed deletion rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Oman, Tokyo

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

2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and Oman. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are literally dozens of sources about the embassy and its activities readily findable to Google. I went ahead and added like half a dozen to the article just now, and I can probably go ahead and find some more if anyone truely wants to argue that they are insufficient - remembering that the criteria for an article having sufficient sources is that they exist in the world, not that they are cited in the article as currently written.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of skateboarding podcasts

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST. Few if any of the existing references are reliable and I'm unable to find better sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Popular culture, Sports, and Skating. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 1, 2, & 4 all discuss Skateboarding podcasts as a group or set. Wil540 art (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact that a couple niche interest websites of questionable WP:RSness have some recommendations of podcasts for their particular subject doesn't really satisfy the spirit of WP:NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are a couple of notable entries, but not enough for a stand alone list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been removed at the time of creation or in fact never allowed to proceed to the main space. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more a directory linking out to podcasts than an encyclopedia article. Many of the entries' citations are just the websites for the podcasts, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Owhor

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage from independent reliable source rather than this which wasn't an in-dept of the subject. The second ref was a 404 (page not found). The biography also fails verification because I don't see any reliable source stating that the subject has 3 children. Gabriel (……?) 10:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 10:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don’t know if this should be a speedy keep but this person passes WP:JUDGE as the attorney general of Rivers State. Best, Reading Beans 11:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:ANYBIO per the position held and his current membership of a board of what appears to be a regional government. Piscili (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:JUDGE, as noted above. Sal2100 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dry Age Boutique

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

This company page fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources fail RS test as all are press releases or sponsored articles. Piscili (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Most source are announcement of store opening.--Gabriel (……?) 08:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Myint

AfDs for this article:

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

This article probably describes a person who does not exist, and is a composite of several sources. Four sources are cited in the article, each referring to a different person.

Source 1 is an article about U Kyaw Win, the founder of Myanmar May Flower Bank. The article also mentions U Kyaw Myint, the owner of Golden Flower Co., Ltd, but this is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.
Source 2 introduces U Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry under the Ministry of Industry 1. He is not related to U Kyaw Win or U Kyaw Myint, the owner of Golden Flower Co., Ltd.
Sources 3 and 4 present "Pansay" Kyaw Myint, a Namkham militia leader and elected Member of Parliament. He is not related to any of the individuals described in sources 1 and 2. Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the prose (now really fixed: Special:Diff/1247585806/1247587904).—Alalch E. 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. U Kyaw Win, the founder of Myanmar May Flower Bank is the Kyaw Win discussed in the last paragraph of Chinese people in Myanmar § Commerce and industry. This is not an article about this individual. This article is titled "Kyaw Myint" and has been about Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry, from the beginning. Information about Kyaw Win was erroneously added to the article in Special:Diff/307034345. There is a revision with content only about Kyaw Win, in Special:PermanentLink/1247585806. There are various sources about Kyaw Win, who is sometimes called "May Flower" Kyaw Win to differentiate him from other people named Kyaw Win (an example of another Kyaw Win: Kyaw Win).—Alalch E. 00:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. U Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry under the Ministry of Industry is the subject of this article. He does not appear to meet WP:N. As of my writing this comment, the article correctly covers only him.
3. The "Pansay" Kyaw Myint is indeed a third person. Information about him was added in Special:Diff/600987091. I have not yet looked into his notability.
—Alalch E. 00:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now, the one source about Kyaw Myint, the politician, is not WP:Independent as its an interview with him. Additionally, the article is from 2004 so I doubt he is still currently in the same political position given 3 different administrations have changed in between. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source is cited in the article, and it is more about a factory than U Kyaw Myint. The removed content was about two other individuals, so those sources don't affect WP:N for this article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) HueMan1 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kay-Anlog, Calamba

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

Fails notability WP:GEOLAND, Barangays are not considered being notable. Please see here the similar deletion (which is converted the redirect), for more details. TentingZones1 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. TentingZones1 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, part of an AFD nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barandal, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some other deletion discussions mostly were kept. This article is in good shape and has a lot of information, hence keep. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When becomes as a redirect, Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays. Makes it some knowledge about this barangay. Soft deletion if not redirected, resulting the article links were comes in various articles, which is problematic due of lack of sources. When the vote changed in keep, unless the reliable sources and information are available for this article. TentingZones1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:TentingZones1, I see three outcomes you are arguing for which makes it difficult to know what your ultimate choice is. And as I stated, in my previous relisting statement, this AFD is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw the article for deletion. TentingZones1 (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of storms named Hugo

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

PROD undone by author. WP:NLIST not met here. Did a search and could only find Hurricane Hugo as the main topic. Although it is a WP:SETINDEX, it is still required to meet the notability requirements of a WP:STANDALONE. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. Harmless storm index article. It seems that the nominator isn't at all familiar with these types of pages (and I've created numerous SIA's). The name Hugo has been used in more than one basin, so the name perfectly qualifies for a storm index article; and there's a strong possibility that it gets re-used in the future since it has been included in the list of names for the 2024–25 European windstorm season. No valid reasons for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SIAs don't have to be a notable topic themselves but may be a list of topics that are notable on their own.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER - the 1989 hurricane is very obviously the primary topic. Hatnotes linking the two pages should do the job. Java Hurricane 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm aware of WP:SETNOTDAB, and it doesn't change my view: where a SIA consists of only two entities, where one is clearly the primary topic (and in this case, the other entity, the 2018 windstorm, doesn't even have its own article), hatnotes are a more efficient method of handling the situation than a full-fledged list. And as for Yoris's argument, WP:CRYSTAL applies - future systems sharing the name can be handled at the time they actually happen.

On a side note, I'm interested in knowing why a SIA about systems of the same name is not, in practice, a disambiguation page. Java Hurricane 19:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support hatnotes if it weren't common practice to create a storm index with only two entries. See Category:Set index articles on storms, which is filled with lists containing only two entries (e.g. List of storms named Andrew, List of storms named Beta, List of storms named Evelyn, etc.), so for consistency's sake this one should be kept as well. And I hate making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I just couldn't avoid it. Also, I don't think the winter storm is relevant enough for mentioning at the Hurricane Hugo article (not even as a hatnote), since hurricanes and winter storms are completely different weather systems, and it would be odd for someone to confuse them both. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point there also exist counterexamples - such as 1935 Labor Day hurricane's hatnote. Don't think it is even that odd to confuse tropical and non-tropical cyclones - the term "storm" can be quite ambiguous for an uninitiated reader. On the former point, I repeat my previous question. Java Hurricane 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's likely because the 1935 hurricane is unnamed (i.e. has no official name), and was named "Labor Day" because it made landfall on that exact date. However, I see no counterexamples for storms that have official names, at least none that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per javahurrincae Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cyclone Yoris and Noah - don’t see any valid reasons for deletion. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are three topics in the SIA. Tavantius (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure of the nuances of WP:SETINDEX and storm index articles but I know that I don't see any consensus here. Sinces sources don't matter here, it seems like precendence might and if there is the standard format for strom lists, maybe that should be a consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as set indices articles (SIA). – The Grid (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets all the criteria of SIA for storms, and it's easy to see the precedents. There are no valid reasons for deletion.DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hurricane Noah. Piscili (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Since being relisted, additional sources have been located, and new !votes were made to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siue Moffat

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

WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any book reviews, or much of anything in sources otherwise. Nothing in news or a general Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see three reviews for "Lickin' the Beaters 2: Vegan Chocolate and Candy" via Proquest, but not much else. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, reviews exist for Lickin' the Beaters 2 from Library Journal [8] and Vegetarian Journal [9], and there are two shorter reviews for the two Lickin' the Beaters cookbooks from Broken Pencil magazine [10][11]. Broken Pencil also has a good number of reviews on her zines, e.g., one for The Day I Stopped Being Punk [12]. There's also an interview with her in Joe Biel's Beyond the Music: How Punks are Saving the World with DIY Ethics, Skills, & Values (Microcosm Publishing) on pages 150–152. With more research, I think we could probably find more reviews of her works that would warrant inclusion of this article (per WP:NAUTHOR). Best, Bridget (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a lot of reviews/mentions are before the internet existed as we know it. Broken Pencil reviewed all the zines, even some not listed on the wiki page. I've just found a Fascinating Folks from Broken Pencil (hopefully I'm doing this correctly, first time in one of these discussions... Maulydaft (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I "vote" Not to Delete. To the article I added an example of the HeartaCk column (magazine defunct), an inclusion of Fascinating Folks in Broken Pencil, an interview with Boardwalk Chocolates with T.O.F.U Magazine. Bitch Magazine also highlighted Fascinating Folks in an article but Bitch is also defunct. Maulydaft (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here's another review. Nfitz (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found and added another radio interview on CFBU, Animal Voices, and website; Bitch Magazine article; others have found numerous other reviews of writings that weren't even on the list previously. Maulydaft (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Several zines have been reviewed, though many are reviewed in Broken Pencil, with which Moffat seems to have been involved. Many of the reviews are quite short, as well. However, I believe we have enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, author has never had any direct connect with Broken Pencil - only been reviewed. Maulydaft (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The author's work is cited and reviewed in punk culture magazine, the Toronto Star, and vegan food sources. Jaireeodell (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hadley (rugby league)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SPORTSCRIT. He only played one first grade game. Could not find any indepth coverage of this person including looking in google books and Australian database Trove including searches like: https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=%22Harold%20Hadley%22%20AIF LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and one appearance isn't a notable career. Mn1548 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There's a consensus here that we have two reliable, independent sources providing SIGCOV. And while we'd all prefer there to be a third source, there is no P&G requirement for such. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Rosander

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

A cool person in the marching arts, but he sadly does not have any coverage save for a mention of death and an induction into a governing body's hall of fame. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the DCI hall of fame is the greatest honor one can achieve in the activity.

Also I edited the article to include additional references such as his listing in the Vanguard Hall of Fame, a bio in GPG Music, and Phantom Regiment's announcement of when he joined their staff.

Myron was a person who avoided the spotlight but was still well known and recognized in an activity that itself has very little outside coverage. He dedicated over thirty years of his life to pushing the artistic boundaries of this activity and deeply shaping the individuals who participated in it with him. You can see evidence of that in his DCI Hall of Fame Induction video at 2:15: "The feelings of love and admiration were truly palpable to all in attendance (of his Vanguard Hall of Fame induction ceremony). Indeed on that Saturday morning, Vanguard Hall was packed with friends and former members from Myron's history in drum corps." Also in Halftime Magazine's epitaph, Santa Clara Vanguard alum, Jeremy Van Wert quotes Rosander as saying, "If you think I’m here about winning a championship, you are dead wrong; I’m here because I care about the men and women you will become in the years after you leave Santa Clara Vanguard. I care about the human inside the uniform."

Especially considering the relative obscurity of the drum and bugle corps activity, I believe this depth and high level of recognition constitutes notability, per Wikipedia guidelines. Mrengy (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, all of the sources, aside from his obituary and Hall of Fame bio, are from places where he was employed. That simply does not cut it for a biography. For an example of a person involved in drum corps that is also notable, see Bill Bachman. The difference between Rosander and Bachman is that Bachman has tertiary and secondary sources from reputable magazines and scholarly journals that discuss his work. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The obituary in an independent, secondary source and the DCI Hall of Fame induction statement constitute sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources for a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only two reliable sources for a biography. And most people that die have obituaries. I would like to see more sourcing other than an obituary and an HoF induction. It does not even meet WP:THREE where the above sources are already borderline. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG doesn't say "three," it says "multiple." Two is multiple. And this obituary describes his significance within the community and it's written by an independent source. The vast, vast majority of obituaries are written/published by family members of the deceased and are indeed unsuitable for GNG qualification, see WP:NOBITS. This one was different. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in two reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcline Investment Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Tennessee. – The Grid (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created the article after learning of the Omega Engineering incident, which was a notable computer sabotage attack in American history. Arcline has been acquiring companies, like Omega Engineering, and I simply wanted to create the article for the parent company. Note: At least 3 companies have Wikipedia articles that link to the parent company, Arcline. These companies also have subsidiaries which could make use of the Arcline article as a focal point. More can be added to the article but, nevertheless, I leave it in your competent hands. Usedbook (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, as said above, references appear to be based on company announcements, there are none with in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dennehy

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

Non-notable amateur sports person. In terms of WP:SPORTBASIC, the only coverage I can find is the stuff that I've added to the article. Most of which is not independent (like "listings" on personnel sheets of orgs with which the subject has a connection like these: [13][14][15]; Which, even if they were independent, are far from in-depth coverage). Or ROTM "match report" type passing mentions (like these: [16] [17]). In terms of WP:GNG, we barely have enough sources to establish even the sub-stub that we have. And certainly insufficient sources to expand any biographical information (DOB, place of birth, education, etc). A search in Irish news sources returns little to nothing. In the Irish Independent family of regional/national papers for example, all I can find are these two trivial passing mentions. Similar searches, in news sources like the Irish Examiner or Irish Times or RTE.ie, return nothing at all. Nothing. Not even trivial passing mentions. Notability is not established. Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know nothing about how significant American football is in Ireland. That said, being one of the initial inductees into the Hall of Fame for American football in Ireland suggests he was at a minimum a pretty big frog in a little pond. Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. K. Durga

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

Promotion with "sources" like X or Facebook; I doubt the page meets GNG and BIO requirements. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is winning an Nari Shakti Puraskar award enough for WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC? I don't see any WP:SIGCOV for this subject but she appears to have a significant academic track record, for which she won the aforementioned award.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jana Jonášová. There is no Keep sentiment, but not enough discussion to resolve the two proposed options of Delete or Redirect. So I'm closing with the latter as the alternative to deletion that preserves the history in case additional sources for notability are available in the future. RL0919 (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Jonášová

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to pass the notability criteria. AntEgo (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her mother Jana Jonášová per WP:NOTINHERITED if sources can't be found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether this article should be Deleted or Redirected to Jana Jonášová.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some fresh opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsa Mohammadi

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

Fails notability, never even participated in a major event let alone winning something. he never won that medal mentioned in the article. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still another junior karateka with no success as an adult. The silver medal it shows for him at the Asian championships was in a cadet division (clear because the weight division given isn't used for adults and because he was only 15). The WKF database shows he won two fights to win the silver. He has never competed in a European or world championship as an adult. In fact, the WKF doesn't show him competing in any event as an adult yet. The sources are all from state media reporting on team results. No WP notability criteria are met. Papaursa (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to provide some explanations regarding the proposal to delete this article, which may offer a different perspective on the issue. In karate, competitions and medals are directly related to the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. In this sport, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are highly competitive and professional.As a martial art, karate requires a high level of technique and focus, which can only be achieved through continuous training and competition at the adult level. In fact, karate practitioners compete with adults from the very beginning, and competitions are held in a professional and rigorous manner. The fact that the silver medal won at the Asian Championships for this athlete, regardless of age, reflects their high skill level and abilities on an international scale.Furthermore, deleting this article is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. This article should remain as a credible reference in the field of karate, as every sport requires documentation and resources that help showcase the history and achievements of its athletes.Ultimately, considering these points, deleting the article is not only a mistake but also results in the loss of an important part of the history and achievements of this athlete. The article should remain to aid in documenting and legitimizing this athlete’s contributions in the future.BookLover070 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— BookLover070 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

BookLover070 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. More importantly, he fails to show the subject meets WP:GNG or any SNG. His argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. He even contradicts himself. First he makes the incorrect statement that karate has "no separation between age categories, and all competitions are highly competitive and professional" when the article clearly shows the subject's success was only in youth divisions. Then he says "karate requires a high level of technique and focus, which can only be achieved through continuous training and competition at the adult level." This again argues against subject's WP notability. There's a reason that WP:MANOTE says that only success in adult black belt divisions shows competitive WP notability (and then only for high level tournaments). Papaursa (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable athlete. No success as an adult. Fails notability. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Hashemzadeh

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

Fails notability, most probably everything in this article is fake. he never won a gold medal at the Asian Games or 2019 Asian Senior Championships! he never participated in any major event. Sports2021 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did not compete at the 2018 Asian Games, so that claim is false. The WKF database shows he is a registered competitor, but they show no record of him competing at any of their events. There are over 350 ranked competitors in his division, but he is not listed. The sources don't show WP notability or, in the case of his supposed Asian Games championship, what they're claimed to show. There is a source showing he won a bronze medal at the "2nd World Goju Karate Championship" in 2013 (he'd have been 17 or 18). The host South Africans won 21 of the 55 gold medals. His age, the medal distribution, and the fact that many of the divisions didn't even have enough competitors to give out all 4 medals all seem to point to this being a relatively minor event. I don't believe the coverage meets WP:GNG as it consists of lots of congratulatory reporting on results and celebrations over success at minor events. No evidence that any WP notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further evaluation of the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking through the added sources, and relying on Google translate, I found claims of international and world championships, but none of them specified the division or sponsoring organization. The most I found was a claim that he won a youth world championship, but there's no record of him competing at any WKF event. There were also interviews of him saying he would be training to compete at the Olympics, but again there's no record of him competing in any qualifying events. I saw no evidence of him meeting WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Please let me know if anyone shows WP:THREE is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability as per nom. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is rough consensus that this is a content fork of Bluebird K7 and should therefore be deleted as redundant in scope. A redirect to Bluebird K7 can be editorially created if deemed helpful. In assessing consensus, I'm disregarding the opinion by Andy Dingley which consists only of complaints about the conduct of others, and does not make an argument as to why this article should be kept or not. Sandstein 08:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Smith (underwater surveyor)

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

Declined multiple times and rejected at AFC. This is all adequately covered in Bluebird K7 there is no requirement for a separate article on Smith. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DDelete: Per above. No need to waste time over this. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Bluebird K7 forms only a part of Bill Smith's pioneering work using adapted side-scan sonar equipment. Without his experience in this specific art, the site of K7's lake-bed location would not have been found anew. Also, through Bill Smith's own work on the HMHS Britannic search, the then unknown reasons for sinking of this important vessel, now a war grave, was established beyond doubt. You might have been influenced in your judgement by taking sides in what was an ugly editing war surrounding the Bluebird K7 article. So, yes you are right, but only up to a point. Bill Smith's work might have been "covered" but not "adequately covered". I shall continue to respond to any genuine suggestions for improvement to the article. Nigel PG Dale 15:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nigel PG Dale (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets WP:GNG. There are at least three sources in the article including[18][19][20]. Then during a before search I found these sources [21][22]. With these it should scale though WP:GNG. That it was declined and rejected multiple times in the AFC is not a criteria for deletion. AFC is meant to incubate and develop an article to at least minimum acceptable standard. Piscili (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant attempt by apparent WP:COI editor to get around the WP:AFC process and ignore community concerns. Same issues as noted there continue to apply. Melcous (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'apparent' COI here, it's a very obvious one that Nigel has always been entirely open about. Unlike the several IPs that just happen to geolocate to one person with a known IRL grudge, no visible profile on Wikipedia and massive BF COI edits all over the K7 article. But hey, Wikipedia does just love to railroad a new editor, and even better if they're an outside subject expert but not part of the wikiclique.

Using AFC is how an outside COI editor is supposed to work. But, as always, they've been very badly treated here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley sorry I don't understand your point here. Yes, AFC is how a COI editor is supposed to work. Here, the COI editor chose to disregard that process and unilaterally moved the article to main space, hence this AfD. Who are you suggesting is being railroaded here? Melcous (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Smith seems likely to be notable - he's been involved in multiple notable events, and he's made a widely recognised contribution to the historical record - but at present the only independent source in the article that discusses him in some detail is Knowles' The Bluebird Years. (Gina Campbell's memoir Daughter of Bluebird also has a section about him, but that's not a secondary source.) I'd go Keep if there was another independent, reliable profile along similar lines - maybe one of the contributors might have another book on Bluebird or Britannic that covers him? Adam Sampson (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which seems pointless, given that @Explicit: has aready deleted it out of process. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: If you could strike your misinformed accusation, that would be great. ✗plicit 03:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an article in mid AfD [23]. What part of our process does that follow? (Although it seems to fit perfectly with how this article has been treated) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has deleted the article mid AfD. It has been moved due to incorrect naming, which is confusing sure, but not at all what you seem to be suggesting. Melcous (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit deleted the article yesterday [24], leaving this AfD redlinked. They then, after I posted here, edited this AfD to fix the link. Now if I've misread the logs and the redlink was created by a move rather than a deletion, then I can only apologise. But my point stands: yet again there's a pointless move of this article before any discussion about the change, and during the discussion just so that discussion is disrupted and the article can then be conveniently G6'ed. This is careless, and it's not how we're meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear from the diff you posted above, Nigel PG Dale moved the page, and all Explicit did was then delete the redirect that move had created. I later moved the article again due to a poor choice of disambiguation by the author, not realising the confusion that would create for this AfD, for which confusion I apologise. Again, all Explicit did in response was tidy up the links here, so I think you should either apologise to them or strike your comments accusing them of "deleting it out of process". Melcous (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article is now at Bill Smith (underwater surveyor) Maybe if it can be kept moving fast enough, Wikipedia will get to delete it before anyone notices? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based discussion. NB. I have move protected the current title, Bill Smith (underwater surveyor), to stop the shenanigans as there is no need or reason to move an article while at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bluebird_K7#Recovery as an WP:ATD. Virtually all the coverage of the subject is in the context of the Bluebird recovery therefore WP:1E applies. Coverage of the 4 other underwater searches appear sparse; one is a simple mention only, and I've added CN tags to the other three as they are unsourced. ResonantDis_tortion 19:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per ResonantDistortion all the coverage is about his involvement with the K7 recovery with most being brief mentions or his comments. I would say redirect but I had already created one, Bill Smith (scuba diver) after I rejected the draft, though I am not opposed to that one being deleted and the article redirected to maintain history should additional sources become available. S0091 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brown living

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

Likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourced to advertorials, promotional pieces.

Previously G11'd - Brown Living KH-1 (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Why was it not G11'd again. It is promoting some of its own products, linking to several products and the shops that sell them. Straight up WP:PROMO as an an advert article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on an e-commerce start-up. I can't see the extent to which this article submitted by Irbasdude resembles the instance previously created by Uthapu in August and deleted as G11 promotional, however as has been suggested above the same might apply here. Sources such as PRnewswire, alumni and product listing articles do not demonstrate attained notability and I am not seeing better. AllyD (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Brazil women's national softball team. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Brazil. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is no Brazil women's under-18 team, only under-20 and under-17. Svartner (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been to AFD before as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brazil women's national softball team, which now has some information about the junior women's team, including the fact that they were ranked 8th in the world as of April 2024, following the V Pan American Championship for Women U-18 where they came in 4th. (Then keep improving the target article as well.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Song-guk

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the film The Game of Their Lives and it has sigcov on him. I kept a notebook with the content discussing him that I'll have to find. I believe one scene had a player saying something like 'here's [North Korean] newspaper headlines I kept on all of our players' – so it's clear that the players (especially the significant ones like Yang) had sigcov. Let me draftify and I'll turn it into something good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. Just realized from this that documentaries can count as sigcov, thanks! May be able to write some articles based on subjects covered in documentaries. seefooddiet (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played at the World Cup, Olympics, and managed the national team?! Clearly notable. Giant Snowman 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Due to the lack of sources, the tendency is for it to be deleted, but in fact this seems to be one of the most relevant players in North Korea. Svartner (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a review of sources, if they don't provide notability, then perhaps draftification is the more realistic closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's some coverage on page 18 of this North Korean book [25] and in this book [26]. Is that enough for sigcov? Should be notable as the captain of the squad. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Some coverage" is now routine match coverage in a book jam packed with lies from a country with a wholly unreliable media. The other book is just a sentence. Dratify shouldn't be an option as it is unlikely sigcov will emerge in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The film I mentioned above contains significant coverage (as well as a scene that went something like: "Every North Korean from his generation recognizes his face. Every younger North Korean recognizes the name 'Yang Song Guk, hero of the eighth World Cup'"). In addition, there's also another scene with a player showing a book full of newspaper clippings for the players from the Cup – so its clear they were well-covered (and the suggestion that everything from North Korean is wholly unusable is ridiculous – it should be used with caution, yes, but not outright banned). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's biased out the wazoo, but we have confirmation (from the film) it's not made up. It's a source, that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per users above. Clealry significant figure in North Korean football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Southern University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Southern University

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

Completely unsourced list of presidents, if content is with keeping it could easily be accommodated at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Lists of people, and Louisiana. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Southern University. Southern University is obviously notable, but I don't think the list of presidents warrants its own article. Best to merge it into the university's article. Adding sources shouldn't be too hard; I've already found 2 independent sources talking about presidents of the university just from a quick Google.
2601:246:5C80:65F0:8AE3:9A61:23A4:FB45 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It doesn't have the independent coverage as a general topic to convince me of WP:NLIST, and it's only a dozen lines of tabular content; it could easily be merged into the main article without causing significant balance issues. An alternative possibility might be to split off History of Southern University as a separate article and include the presidency there, but currently the sourcing of the history section of the main article is so poor that I don't think it can support a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best way to deal with this, for other schools this is the best way forward. I understand why someone would make this but still it's not really notable on it's own. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doesn't have stand alone notability as a list. Pinguinn 🐧 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge each with the respective season article if one exists, otherwise delete‎. If you believe any of the nominated articles should be deleted instead of merged, feel free to nominate it by itself immediately. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlético Mineiro transfers 2011

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

All of these lists do not pass WP:SALAT as they are too specific and most are already in their club season's article. Club specific youth-to-first team moves are not notable enough to be stand-alone lists. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the club season article where applicable, such as 2011 Clube de Regatas do Flamengo season#Transfers, delete the rest (i.e. those without season articles) as overly specific list topics. Geschichte (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of the "Categories of Base" ones. Strange and unprecedented topic. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see season pages, either merge into transfer pages or season pages, if not then I don't see any other alternative other than deletion. It would be lost data from wikipedia then. Transfers can be notable, but this is not how we should handle the data. This is down to either kill or keep. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I usually advise against such bulk nominations, but these types of articles are inherently non-notable, at most we have a season article. No point redirecting as the search term is improbable. Giant Snowman 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – With the articles corresponding to club seasons (ex List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo transfers 2009 → 2009 Clube de Regatas do Flamengo season). I also support delete for the List of Flamengo Categories of Base transfers 2010 and List of Flamengo Categories of Base transfers 2011. Svartner (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Case of babies born without arms in France

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

A news story about a cluster of birth defects that was never substantiated as being noteworthy or having an external cause. The government study did not find anything; apart from one journal article [27] there does not seem to be any follow-up coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete per the nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be the subject of routine news coverage and nothing more. Pinguinn 🐧 02:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- delete per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79lives (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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