Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 10	July 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. – Joe (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1794 in Ukraine

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

~~GNG Martin^talk 21:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)~~(strike withdrawn nomination statement)[reply]

Keep Look at Template:Years in Ukraine, or any for any other nation. I link to anything notable enough to have its own article, so its a valid navigational list. There are also two references there, one for the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and the other from Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Dream Focus 22:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 22:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has encyclopedic value and sources exist that meet GNG. Question to nominator, Martinc021 did you do a BEFORE prior to nominated this? Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin^talk 02:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While "GNG" is not a valid nomination by any stretch, Ukraine was not a country at the time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 in Kosovo. Also, a category would do a fine job of containing what little information there is here. Geschichte (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_June_27#1794_in_Ukraine_(closed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Ukraine#18th century per Geschichte‘s vote and per WP:NOPAGE. The three cities/ports established during this year can be included as a single-sentence mention at the proposed target. Absent a redirect and/or selective merge, my second preference would be to keep the article as is. Frank Anchor 10:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1794 in Russia, in analogy to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 in Kosovo. Procyon117 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 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 13:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcon

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

Appears to be a non-notable business, article created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability for a company can’t be demonstrated by a few pieces of coverage in niche trade press. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article.

By the way, User:Say ocean again, you are a very new editor but users are encouraged to improve articles during AFD discussions so you shouldn't have been reverting edits seeking to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janneke Parrish

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO; at best WP:BIO1E. Also unambiguous WP:COI as page created and curated by the subject. Page was previously subject of PROD and deleted. Note my recent PROD tag was (appropriately) declined by Primefac: "cannot be nominated under PROD because of the previous AFD, and cannot be nominated under WP:G4 because it is significantly different than the original". Cabrils (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered in the Guardian [1] and the NY Times [2]. With the rest of the coverage for this activist, it should be fine for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and [3] and some textbooks talking about her in the last few years, showing sustained coverage [4] and [5]. Her situation at work is discussed here [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to AppleToo. The serious WP:COI with the creator is an issue, but not the primary one. Per nom, Parrish is notable for one event: being fired from Apple as it relates to #AppleToo. 99.99999% of sources are specifically about AppleToo: nearly all about her firing. The sources Oaktree b shares are the same topic, sustained or otherwise. The very first article about #AppleToo was in Vice, some weeks later The Guardian covered it, and of the hundreds of results during the first month, there is nothing about Parrish. Her first mention is in The New York Times about the recording that was leaked and #AppleToo. For the following month Business Insider & Vox. That's 3 sources for #AppleToo as a standalone event—and BI is derivative of NYT.

Only 5 sources out of all of the sources about her are not related to her being fired. Only 2 of those are not related to #AppleToo. There's no case for WP:BLP2E here. Say ocean again (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I weigh events individually to determine notability. The Information and Stat News do not meet WP:EVENTCRIT. (I can only read the first few paragraphs from The Information, but the title also says it's about her firing, so it is, by extension, related to the same event.) The time span between them is only a month and there's no lasting impact or sustained coverage of the event. ... viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. It's a bit misleading to say there are multiple sources from before #AppleToo, when there is only one: The Austin American-Statesman. She was not elected and it was local election so it fails WP:NPOL (not widely or significantly covered, either). The notable event is #AppleToo. WP:BIO1E says: In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Without Parrish's firing, there are only two intellectually independent sources. Vox and NYT. Coverage about her role in #AppleToo begins on the day she was fired from The Verge (Oct. 15, 2021: 3 months after #AppleToo began). Her role is described in a variety of sources as being one of the people who shared and posted the stories beginning in September: Parrish and Cher Scarlett, an Apple software engineer, then began sharing these stories on Medium. In Business Journals she describes analyzing the data. I went in and read every single employee story so that we could put together statistics on what they were about. Wired describes her as a founder of Apple Together, but there's nothing beyond this mention. WP:WEIGHT is a significant factor here for all of this, especially it is a WP:AUTOBIO. The firing is what is persistent here in the context of #AppleToo, so the question remains if her firing is a standalone event from #AppleToo, which would be the single qualifier for an article about her.

Separate comment: I don't think the Kara Alaimo source can be used. The author writes Parrish started #AppleToo. That seems false based on the sources (especially after having read them chronologically). While some later sources describe Parrish as a co-founder, none of the early ones do. They describe her as a leader for her role in sharing the stories on Medium. The Vice source says a pseudonymous Apple service provider "Fudge" co-founded the group and the vast majority say the founders were Scarlett and a group of anonymous 15 employees in Fudge's Discord server. This is part of the reason why I consider narrative to be a primary source, even if it's in a book. I am more wary of it with Parrish given that this is the second autobiography from her. Say ocean again (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nom is on the basis of WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies.

We've got WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues because of the test on WP:PSEUDO:

Is the individual substantially covered? Y
Is the individual the main focus of the coverage? N

She is the main focus on coverage of her firing, not the event itself

Is the person notable for any other events in their life? N

Say ocean again (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Oaktree b above. Looking closer, multiple sources providing in-depth WP:SIGCOV into her specifically (1, 2). Additional sources from before #AppleToo, such as 3. In regards to WP:BLP1E, I would say she does not meet condition #3: the event in question (#AppleToo) is very significant and Parrish's role in it was both substantial and well documented. CaptainAngus (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage on her activism in the area. Hence, the firing is just one aspect of her coverage and is not a single event. The sources noted by CaptainAngus and Oaktree b are examples of significant coverage. In addition, and unrelated to her work at Apple, Parrish has received significant coverage about her experiences with health professionals when she had a miscarriage and how changes in US regulations about abortion will impact women seeking medical care in the United States, see stories here: [[7]][8]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple sources provide in-depth significant coverage of the subject, meeting WP:SIGCOV There are sources that cover her activities and significance even before the #AppleToo event. Regarding her role in the #AppleToo movement was substantial and well-documented, and the event was very significant, meaning she does not meet condition #3. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage of her activism, showing that the firing is just one aspect of her broader public presence. Additionally, she has received significant coverage for her experiences with health professionals following a miscarriage and discussions on how changes in US abortion regulations will impact women's medical care. Thus, her coverage goes beyond a single event, substantiating her notability.Master rollo (talk) 11:09, 16 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

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

The person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. WP:MILL business person. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. No SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV:
1. https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО)
2. https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/
3. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html
See also 17,000 results of Google Search in Ukrainian

Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine --Perohanych (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I stand by my delete here. References are trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Everything else is routine press releases. C F A 💬 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@182.53.28.77, this is a person. The applicable guidelines here are WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of trivial mentions and interviews among the available sources, but I'd count Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan and DELO.ua as sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG. If the consensus goes toward deletion, I'd recommend a redirect to Kyivstar instead of outright deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is trivial and consists only of passing mentions. The provided sources and WP BEFORE do not help establish notability. WP MILL and WP SIGCOV should be especially considered here. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Old-AgedKid please explain why Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan, DELO.ua and forbes.ua are not sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG? --Perohanych (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because of Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION - none of the provided source meet reliable source requirement per WP:CORPDEPTH (The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization) Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPDEPTH — is about organizations and companies, not about persons. Oleksandr Komarov is a person. At the addresses, specified above, there are pages dedicated entirely to Komarov's biography and achievements. This does not fit the definition of trivial mention. --Perohanych (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I messed up Corpdepth with WP:SIGCOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). None of the sources provided meets SIGCOV.

Here is the assessment of the sources:

Interfax - only a passing mention and a press-release with a direct referencing to the press-center of the company; Forbes Kazakhstan - a press-release style page with brief, résumé-like mentions of his past positions, lacking significant coverage that may establish notability. Delo - a passing mention of the person with routine mentions of his three previous positions (no significant coverage, just copy-paste). Forbes Profile - profiles are never considered reliable sources, and this one primarily contains his citations. EPravda - no significant, reliable, independent coverage, only a copy-paste of his past positions without notability analysis or other substantial information. Thus, the person fails WP GNG, ANYBIO and SIGCOV Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good-faith analysis. The sources (EPravda, Delo, Forbes Kazakhstan and Interfax anyway) are legit, it's not churnalism, there's no evidence they're reprinted press releases. The Delo article is a four-paragraph profile on a list of top executives, not a "passing mention." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any truly significant coverage. All the sources mention the person only in the context of their new appointment and do not evaluate their notability. This is not churnalism but a classic reprint of trivial information—he was a manager here, then there, and today was appointed elsewhere. This does not meet the criteria for significant coverage (Sigcov) and definitely does not help in passing the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the entire article is promotional. It meets WP:BIO. Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as I cannot find how the person meets GNG. The sources are not the best either. But the problem is with general notability as general managers are not notable by their own. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General managers are not notable by their own, but a general manager who is ranked No. 1 as the best executive in the country, a general manager who has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of him — is notable. --Perohanych (talk) 13:14, 18 July 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!} 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian women government ministers

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly maintained and deeply-context deficient list with significant maintainability problems. For starters, it just indiscriminately lists women in one common omnibus list, regardless of whether they served in a federal or provincial/territorial cabinet, which isn't particularly helpful -- if there's any value to this, it would be far better served by either splitting the list up into separate subsections for each individual government, or actually creating full standalone spinoff lists for each individual government, for clarity of context, because federal and provincial/territorial cabinets are different beasts.
For another thing, it's actually missing far more names than it's including -- a quick WP:AWB comparison between this list and Category:Women government ministers of Canada found 326 women in the category who are not in this list, compared to just 135 women who are in both places.
This list hasn't been updated with any new names since 2017, so no woman who joined a Canadian government cabinet in the past seven years has ever been added here at all, and even in 2017 it already wasn't particularly complete, because the creator basically aimed for at-the-time comprehensiveness only for the federal and Ontario cabinets, and bunked off nearly the entire rest of the country.
In other words, this list is deeply incomplete, and isn't organized in a way that would actually be helpful or valuable to a reader -- and since we already have Category:Women government ministers of Canada as it is, it's not entirely clear that it would be worth the time investment to actually fix this list. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody actually is willing to put in that time, but it's not serving readers to hold onto a deeply incomplete and poorly organized version that isn't actually being repaired. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Lists, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also, is the name correct? Woman is not an adjective. I suppose it could be a noun phrase - but where's the hyphenation? Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Canadian women in politics hasn't been a big issue in a while, and this list doesn't do much more than the category. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST; navigational purposes are served by the identical category. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the article needs to be more than just bullet points if someone wanted to give this a better try perhaps just for federal ministers or otherwise organized. I'm also concerned about the 20 pages like Women in the 41st Canadian Parliament that are duplicative of List of women elected to Canadian Parliament. That just duplicates List of House members of the 41st Parliament of Canada but with the men removed so those are quite redundant and the prose can be consolidated/merged. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 12 July 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 Antoni Potocki (1780–1850). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Potocki

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for WP:BLPS. In my opinion, its not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Potocki family. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) to which Przemysław's mother also redirects. Oppose redirecting to Potocki family, which I assume is for notable entries (although I see one non-linked entry). Also, neither his father nor son who have standalone pages, have entries in the Potocki family. Jay 💬 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete (although not on BLP grounds for a subject who purportedly died in 1847). Not finding any sources to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~ Procedural close with NPASR on grounds of nominator being a banned sockpuppet with a pattern of disruptive AfD nominations. (I stand by my earlier !vote but would rather see it nominated by an editor in good standing.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that this article does not contain footnotes and it says " He was married to Princess Teresa Sapieha since 1830. They had five children together: Roza Marianna Potocka, Idalia Potocka, Pelagia Potocka, Stanisław Antoni Potocki and Antoni Potocki. " No further description and some hopeless information AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to suggest the subject was notable; being a noble from a notable family is not enough. No sources, no pl wiki interwiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) per Jay. By the way, Piotrus is correct for mentioning that there is no interwiki to copy over. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:28, 15 July 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!} 00:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. College of Arts and Science

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

Article is written promotionally Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. People from the school were a part of several books (albeit endless passing mentions) and the college's tryst with sports is documented (albeit passing mentions). DareshMohan (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just had citation bot go fix bare URLs, this article has been here for almost 7 years now. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Draftify at most. Not notable and not enough WP:SIGCOV at this time to gather enough information to create a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG as the basic. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Only a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to qualify under WP:NORG. As for the first commenter above, the "endless passing mentions" do not qualify the subject as notable. They simply validate that the subject exists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 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 03:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet television providers

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

Very vague definition of 'internet TV provider'. Questionable accuracy, see Germany for example where linear channels are listed and which are not 'Internet TV providers'. Lack of references, and seems to be an easy target for vandalisers who want to promote their own services. Amchipo (talk) 20:30, 4 July 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 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article feels like a victim of the times. It was created 15 years ago, when streaming services were nascent and Netflix's only existed in the United States. Now, there are lots of flavors of internet TV, from on-demand streaming services like Netflix etc. to virtual MVPDs that mirror the cable bundle and free ad-supported streaming television that is typically a series of linear channels. The page size graph mirrors this explosion: from 2015 to 2017, it grew from 8 kB to 35 kB, and it went from 47 to 64 kB in the last two years. We have hit a point where a list presents more maintenance load than it is worth. WP:CLN notes, Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. This, I believe, has happened to the topic as a result of secular growth. Category:Internet television streaming services was created in 2018 and has some 130 entries. Someone should review the entries in the list and look to see that relevant ones are in that category. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:24, 13 July 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 Batman#Technology. I see a rough consensus to Redirect this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or ~~Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant~~ Redirect to Batman#Technology as suggested below. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC); edited 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology -I had already stated in my previous comment that I was fine with Redirecting if someone identified a good target, but just to help make it clearer, I'm striking my Delete suggestion to an explicit Redirect recommendation instead. Rorshacma (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising stance. I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology. I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar , and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion. If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology for now, then merge the contents of the article to Technology of Batman when it is created. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. This term can be mentioned there, but stand-alone GNG is too weak for an article. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology. The article isn't about a coherent topic, and doesn't have enough evidence of notability. There is a logical redirect target that covers Batman's gadgets in a more encyclopedic way. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 14 July 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!} 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who items

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget items in the list and Delete list.

-Celery to Fifth Doctor

-Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS

-Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks

-A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)

-Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16

-Matrix to Gallifrey

-Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand

-Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)

-Sonic Screwdriver has an article already

-Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete

-TARDIS has an article

-Time Scoop to The Five Doctors

Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.

Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:BOLDLY edited the redirects based on these suggestions. Other editors can edit them further if they so choose. I support deletion, as the nominator. Jontesta (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proposal of Pokelego999 looks good. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the redirects can be pointed to new targets per Pokelego999. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per WP:CSC is a textbook application: These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the subjects must be described as a group in order to determine the notability of this deviation, as well as the fact that the list must not fall afoul of INDISCRIMINATE, among many other reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm - The couple of notable entries in this list already have their own individual articles, and the remainder are non-notable topics that are either poorly sourced or have no sources at all outside of Dr. Who itself. The overall topic of Dr. Who being notable does not mean that lists of random, vaguely related topics can't also fall under being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have no objection to individual redirects being created, as suggested by Pokelego999. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and redirect incoming per Pokelego999. This fails WP:LISTN as the topic of the article, despite assertions above, is actually "Doctor Who Items" as notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. We are not a random collection of fictional minutia. This is particulaly true for lists of fictional items (e.g. Torchwood items, Once Upon a Time items, Metroid items, W.I.T.C.H. items, Harry Potter spells, Space: 1999 weapons, etc., etc.). The question that should be asked is has the group "Items in Doctor Who" been treated as a group in high quality RSs, to which I think the answer is no.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with no indication for importance. Let'srun (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I have no idea what this proposal is asking a closer to do ("retarget"?). Is it an argument to Keep this article? I'm not concerned with items on this list, I need to know what should happen to this specific article, in its totality. It's Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draftify, those are your options from a closer's point of view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz In this case, those arguing delete/retarget is asking for the closer to delete the article, I believe, while the redirects are sorted out individually on the editor side of things, though to any editors who voted Delete and disagree, feel free to speak your minds. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I am arguing to Delete this list outright. But, if someone wanted to, separate from the closing of this AFD, create a Redirect from Chameleon Circuit to Tardis, etc., then I would have no problem with that. Rorshacma (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once the article is deleted/redirects, any other redirects can be edited / retargeted / recreated as needed. Jontesta (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The article is a complete mess as far as selection criteria goes; most of the entries are described elsewhere. Some of the redirects targeting this page should be kept and re-targeted to other pages (generally the episode(s) the item appeared in); I think that is what the "retarget" votes refer to. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a rough consensus to Keep this article, especially after work was done on the article through the course of this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II

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

The article is written like a narrative around the leadup to and during the fight. Additionally, all these extra details aren't supported by the single source provided, which I believe is WP:NOR. When looking for reliable resources about this fight and match card, I could only find a couple of news articles from ABC News (Australia) that explained the fight was happening and not much else. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World title fights are usually inherently notable events. This article was written at an era in which reliably-sourced material was not deemed as important to the article as it is today. It will be hard to find reliable links due to the fact the bout took place 20 years ago, but I am working on that as I speak. Jeanette La Trevi Martin (digame) 03:40, 12 July, 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable world title bout, the article needs rewriting not deleting. Sam11333 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also opinions that sourcing should be improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans pounce

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

This article is essentially about a handful of disconnected opinion pieces, with only one or two non-opinion pieces briefly criticizing them. There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic, and most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly while focusing on a more specific issue. It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets; the opinion pieces are lopsided representations of the Washington Examiner and the National Review. It's not appropriate to make a Wikipedia article for every opinion-piece talking point, especially ones that have failed to attract significant secondary or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's creator.

There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic See these articles which engage in an analysis of the phenomenon itself:

most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly Clearly not true. There are multiple opinion articles which do not merely use the term, but discuss the overall phenomenon as their primary focus:

It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets The "Analysis" section is a fair balance of the opinion sources I found when researching the topic, per WP:DUE. It is not surprising that more right-leaning commentators would discuss this phenomenon than left-leaning ones, nor that their views would appear in prominent right-leaning publications such as National Review and Washington Examiner. The Kevin Drum piece in Mother Jones is the only one I could find from a left-leaning perspective. And in any event, this "overrepresentation" is a content dispute, not a notability one.

Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, this Commentary article discussing the phenomenon is from 2015, which is indicative of sustained attention. Astaire (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ piece (which you listed as non-opinion) is actually labeled as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article reads more like a defense of the term. It needs more content about its usage, its history, generally the things that would make it notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Comment I believe this article needs more reliable sources to prove notability if it wants to avoid deletion. Most of the sources were previously opinion pieces from random news websites, and an opinion cannot be considered factual sources. In fact, at one point, there was only a single source that was not an opinion. If actual valid sources could be found, I would not mind the article staying, but not in it’s current state where sources are dubious at best and the term hasn’t really been proven to be an actual notable thing outside of a couple rare “here and there” uses. For now I must support Aquillion’s AFD request, but it appears people are actively trying to edit the article to make it better and should be given more time first. Tritario (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the editor who added a "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" template. As I said on the article's talk page: "Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this make a better entry to Wikitionary? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I don't use Wiktionary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how it can misrepresent publications overall when the authors are all individually named. Potential alternate notable opinions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. On the surface it is a bit long for an article based on 3 sources, but reading through it doesn't stretch them too far. Editors should continue to be conscious that this is a relatively thin article and should allow any new sources that appear to substantially impact our treatment of its subject. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that the Wikieditor shoudn't be the one to string it all together. There should be at least one article, preferably more, that mentions these people collectively and says "Yes, that's the same thing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:If a major paper like The Journal uses this term as a headline, there is little doubt that this is notable and that a Wikipedia page has merit. Quote Veteran (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEADLINES, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I may be somewhat biased on this specific issue, because I have a draft on my computer of an article very similar to this one, but I will say this nonetheless. As a few people have articulated above, it seems to have some pretty wide coverage, and meta-discourse topics like this can certainly be encyclopedic if they're written well.

jp×g 🗯️ 20:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This afd has got press: "Thankfully, the farce has reached critical mass. Savvy social media users have caught wind of Wikipedia entry, and it’s now under review for deletion." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDS Research & Advisory

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Un assiolo, do you have any policy-based evidence to support your claim? Just saying "not notable" is not very helpful. C F A 💬 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? This is a borderline A7. The sources are all press releases, a LinkedIn (which I have now removed), the company website, and a few company profiles (on websites that collect them indiscriminately). Adding something along the lines of the three sentences suggested at WP:JN would not, in my opinion, add anything of substance to the nomination. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability whatsoever. Also is one of them seriously a job listing??? Procyon117 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article.

Just curious, User:Nolan Cohen, did you create your account just to nominate this article for deletion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inno Setup

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

The topic does not have a detailed independent secondary source and is also not compliant with WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are either blogs or simply software instructions. Nolan Cohen (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Nolan Cohen (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think its widespread use (or not) should be established before deletion is even considered. The proposal alone discredits it to a casual reader. 92.26.189.159 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POPULARITY Aaron Liu (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a popular piece of software as clearly mentioned in multiple different books ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] and peer-reviewed journal and conference articles. ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] It is also considered as a language/tool by GitHub Linguist. ^[9] Uvarun2009 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources presented above are either instructional guides for downloading software or lack in-depth, detailed coverage. Also, some sources have a promotional tone, such as the one on Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are also sources that remain unverified. Nolan Cohen (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These instructional guides aren't just for downloading the software. I don't see why they should be disqualified. Keep Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:PARTISAN clearly mentions that: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Of course, I am not urging to use the exact same tone or point of view from the sources. I have verified all the sources that I provided. I want to highlight that WP:SOURCETYPES mentions that, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The peer-reviewed scholarly articles I provided in the sources, clearly mentions Inno Setup as a "powerful" and "popular" piece of software. Uvarun2009 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe the many references (shared above) most likely fulfil the first criteria of WP:NSOFT, namely that it is "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". It is featured extensively in books relating to development, often acknowledging its popularity or functionality (e.g. "First introduced in 1997, Inno Setup today rivals and even surpasses many commercial installers in feature set and stability"). Despite the significant number of such references, I'm not confident many are particularly in-depth. Nevertheless, I still feel Inno Setup is notable enough and that this is established. GhostOfNoMeme 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Buba, Yusuf. Mastering Python. A Comprehensive Journey from Beginner to Professional. BookRix. ISBN 3755445743.
^ Gunderloy ·, Mike. Coder to Developer Tools and Strategies for Delivering Your Software. Wiley. pp. 277–278. ISBN 9780782151251.
^ Thorn, Alan. Game Engine Design and Implementation. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 562. ISBN 9781449656485.
^ Thron, Alan. Cross Platform Game Development. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 359. ISBN 9780763782818.
^ Schummer, Rick; Borup, Rick; Adams, Jacci. Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions. Hentzenwerke Publishing. pp. 429–450. ISBN 9781930919327.
^ Nasucha, Mohammad; Rahmat, Revo; Satrio, Muhammad; Khornelius, John Bryan; Hermawan, Hendi; Handoko, Prio (3 May 2024). "GUI Development for An Image Enhancement Application to Support Computer Vision". International Conference on Artificial Intelligence For Internet of Things: 1–4. doi:10.1109/AIIoT58432.2024.10574765.
^ Tyndall, John B. (15 October 2012). "Building an effective software deployment process". SIGUCCS: 109–114. doi:10.1145/2382456.2382482.
^ Signoret, J.; Balme, S.; Theis, J.M. (October 2013). "A friendly tool to remotely follow-up fusion machines experiments". Fusion Engineering and Design. 88 (6–8): 1455–1459. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.03.023.
^ "linguist/lib/linguist/languages.yml at master · github-linguist/linguist". GitHub.

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!} 20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance

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

Non notable local residents association. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Lack of coverage due to being relatively new. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any independent coverage, subject seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Besides, the article itself seems to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Henry

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and India. Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting corporate notability, I can only find a database listing [9], their Linkedin and an Imdb profile for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable company, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and mainly sourced as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think "India's largest advertising company" disqualifies it from A7 (though it might not actually be true), and there is some non-advert content, disqualifying it from G11. If it really is a sockpuppet, then of course G5 applies. I was not aware of any alleged sockpuppetry which is why I nominated it at AfD instead of requesting speedy deletion. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 would apply in my opinion, because the claim of "India's largest advertising company" is simply not credible. But I didn't mean to criticise you for bringing it to AFD: that was a perfectly valid action based on your assumptions. Wikishovel (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Only promotional content is there.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obviously promotional content per G11. Haruka Amaranth 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom Master rollo (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can locate meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 20:55, 15 July 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!} 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.K Varghese

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

BLP of a local mayor who does not pass NPOL and is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local officials are not automatically notable, and I don't see the kind of news coverage needed to satisfy GNG either. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is mayor of a metropolis city and we keep mayors of metropolis in US so why not we keep of India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a district capital and mayors of district capitals in the U.S. are not generally notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BottleOfChocolateMilk is correct about the standard our community uses to judge local elected officials. We want to see coverage of how a local elected official action impacts their community, especially with a retrospective perspective. What is interesting in this case is that the subject has received a lot of coverage for his praise of BJP leader Suresh Gopi and speculation about the mayor's political future. I wonder if that coverage is regional or national in nature, and to what degree this is a WP:BLP1E flurry of coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politician who seems to have a bigger head than his notoriety. Speculation is nothing. Lauding, endorsing, or supporting other political figures is not inherited notability. Insufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not pass WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 15:40, 18 July 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. FYI: Please do not bring articles to AFD unless you are seeking their deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning

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

I accepted this article from draft with the intention that it meets WP:GNG. This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process. However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks. I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more. The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion. I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keeping the article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Pakistan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, Sorry, but I want to remind you of two points: 1) The article wasn't created via AFC and wasn't even submitted for review. 2) I didn't sincerely wanted to investigate more. As I mentioned on your tp, this AFD was unnecessary and I have little hope it will result in deletion. As I've mentioned on your tp, the AFD process can now feel like a lottery. Anyway, you could have sent it back to the draft namespace, but you decided to take it to AFD, which was your choice. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no issue. It meets WP:NFO criteria #1 and WP:NFILM/GNG in general (see: [10][11][12][13] etc.). This is perfectly fine in mainspace from what I can see. The purpose of AfC is "[...] to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't." I imagine this article will survive deletion because of the amount of coverage it has received. (Semi-)unrelated, I would not recommend moving an article accepted by AfC back to draftspace: Although it doesn't technically violate WP:DRAFTOBJECT (because in this case the reviewer would have been the one to move it back), it could very easily confuse the newer editor who created it. C F A 💬 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't plan to vote for deletion because I don't want others to think I'm on a deletion spree, but I do want to point out that the article was created in violation of the WMF Terms of Use's prohibition of UPE. The fact that it was created by a WP:SLEEPER account as well SPA Wahab98 (talk · contribs) who has been trying to create an article on this topic since joining WP back in 2022, (see this, this, this) leads me to believe involvement of WP:UPE. The fact that different WP:UPE IPs (Special:Contributions/217.165.8.38 and Special:Contributions/223.123.5.5) started editing and defending the article as soon as it was moved to the main namespace and the fact that articles on the same topic have been repeatedly created under different titles by different accounts associated with different UPE sock farms such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress (Nauman335), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taiyabi/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scudo Lives Once/Archive at Draft:UmroAyyar A New Beginning, Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, Draft:Umro Ayyar- A New Begining etc. I really have no issue with an article on this topic being created, but it should be done by an established editor with a credible editing history, not by a WP:SLEEPER/SPA Wahab98. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And not only on this wiki, but the same WP:UPE sock farm recently resorted to creating an article on this topic on the Simple EN WP, out of desperation. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's basically a start-class article at this point, but enough reviews noted that appear to be from good sources to meet notability. I've removed a bit of the gratuitous name-dropping and fluff, at this point, I doubt there's much junk from the UPE editor. Ravensfire (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saqib's reservations are genuine but I think the topic is notable. We can neutralize this to avoid UPE concerns.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:00, 16 July 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!} 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favour Eucharia Ngozi Ugwuanyi

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

BLP of an educational administrator whom I don’t believe is notable. Article sourced to PR announcements and affiliated sources. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here, not presumptively either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is really not notable. Subject fails WP:GNG. Being the Chairman of PPSMB does not make you notable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claerly not notable. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 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 Stranger on the Bridge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Benjamin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jonny Benjamin

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person now, and I want the article to be deleted please Jonnybenjamin (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both Jonnybenjamin and Jlf2025 have held themselves out as the article's subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i created a new account as per the advice of Geoffrey Lane-i was following the instructions step by step from his reply to Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team Re: [Ticket#2024071110029918] Request to delete page about me Jonnybenjamin (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have corrected the link; it previously linked to a non-existent article. Please confirm this is the correct link. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. I have removed some of the more unnecessary personal details. The Stranger on the Bridge might be a redirect target, or another candidate for deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Stranger on the Bridge: per WP:1E. C F A 💬 20:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also support protection per below. C F A 💬 03:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect so it can’t be undone. We don’t need this amount of sensitive personal information about a living person. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 12 July 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!} 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatim Zaghloul

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the article is written in a promotional and advertising tone, and lacks neutrality. فيصل (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Internet. فيصل (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the independent sourcing required to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This engineer has done nice work, but has not attracted enough attention to his work through citations to meet WP:NPROF. There is press coverage, though - is there enough for general notabilty? If so, I'll change my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the person lacks Sigcov to establish GNG. --LusikSnusik (talk) 10:29, 18 July 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. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscape Global

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage of any kind in sources other than obscure and likely unreliable tech blogs. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of in-depth coverage; easily meets WP:NCORP. See Google news (ex: [14][15][16][17][18][19] etc.). It might need a bit of cleanup but deletion is certainly not warranted. I don't think the nominator did a WP:BEFORE. C F A 💬 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 8 is too buggy to open without registering, 9 appears to be a trade journal (not a RS), 10 is a brief PR item, as is 11. 12 is fine I suppose. 13 is a staff report about an award given out, somewhat related. Most of these are not terribly helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though there is a lot of coverage online of this event. The articles above were just a few I found by skimming the first page of Google news. For example, here is another article from Arab News, here is one from Gulf News, here is one in the Entrepreneur magazine, here is one in the Gulf Business magazine, here is one from Gulf Today, and the list goes on and on. The subject is definitely notable (it is covered in-depth by many, many independent reliable sources), you just might have to wade through some routine press releases to get there. C F A 💬 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" is not part of the criteria, the content of said coverage must include in-depth "Independent Content" about the topic. Looking at the sourcing you've referenced, this in Arab News is word-for-word the same as this article published the following day and shares the same information as this article also. Clearly the content is regurgitated PR. This in Gulf News is undoubtedly a PR piece which relies entirely on the mentioned company (and which also fails CORPDEPTH in any case). This in Entrepreneur is yet more PR, same details published in other places around the same time using the exact same information and descriptions, e.g. this. Exact same problems with this in Gulf Business - just regurgitated PR announcing details of the upcoming event. Note also how none of those articles have any attributed journalists. Finally, we get to this in Gulf Today which went around interviewing sponsors and exhibitors - none of this is in-depth "Independent Content" about the event. None of the above references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 20:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my vote. Arab News and Entrepreneur are both independent and reliable and don't do PR/promotion. Whether the article was republished from a news agency doesn't really matter in terms of notability. I am not familiar with Gulf News, though it seems to be a newspaper of record and I see no evidence of it doing promotional stories. The Gulf Today piece does not cover the event itself in-depth, but it can be strung together with many other similar stories (check Google News) to meet GNG. C F A 💬 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most coverage of this conference/trade show is in PR items, talking about the show. I don't see much beyond lists of awards or PRish news items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/WP:NCORP, none of the sourcing I can locate meets the criteria for notability. HighKing 20:26, 15 July 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. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ventrella

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. The sourcing on the article is almost entirely primary, and what secondary sources do exist are either not independent or do not cover the subject in depth. I also couldn't find any sources to establish notability either, unfortunately. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a lot of almost but not quite bits here. I found this on the academic deletion sorting list but he appears not to be primarily an academic and although he has one workshop publication with triple-digit citations [20] the rest do not give him a strong enough citation record for WP:PROF#C1. He has one book, Virtual Body Language, for which I didn't find any reviews; I would need multiple reviews of multiple books to consider notability through WP:AUTHOR. The article as nominated contains no WP:GNG-passing sources. The best I found in my searches was [21], a local newspaper story from 2015 about a startup he founded with some depth of coverage of Ventrella himself. I did also find one group work in MoMA that he contributed to, not enough by itself for WP:ARTIST. We could consider a redirect, if we had a viable redirect target, but neither There (virtual world) nor Gene Pool (software) currently look viable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The AfD from 2007 actually got it (mostly) right, there was no coverage about the individual despite hundreds of hits... In the almost 20 yrs since, I can only find primary sourcing or a few social media sites. Source 21 in the article is the only RS, the rest aren't anything we'd use to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As per the nominator, the article is almost entirely primary references. After a (fairly thorough, I'd say) search, I'm able to find very little published in reliable secondary sources. GhostOfNoMeme 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this page Fails [[WP:GNG], Jeffrey Ventrella is a renowned researcher and artist in both the Artificial Life and Virtual Worlds fields. As the conference organizer of the first and second International Conference on Virtual Worlds, I have invited him to present his works as invited lectures and keynotes. I recommend to keep his profile, but ask for modifications in order to add reliable secondary sources. Jean-Claude Heudin (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been invited to speak at international conferences too, but none of them were prestigious enough to count towards WP:NPROF. In order for your conference invitations to meet the standards we have, we would need to know that the ICVW is itself a well-covered and important conference. Since it's very new that might be hard to establish, but if you can provide some links to coverage of the ICVWs he appeared at that appeared in reliable, primary, independent news sources, that might help. Qflib (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"While this page Fails [[WP:GNG]" -- that's all I needed to hear. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest too. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:20, 18 July 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. FYI: A discussion can not be closed as "Soft Deletion" if there are any Keep votes. If an editor wants to work on a draft of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND and know you'll need to submit it to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Morgan

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

How has this survived the raised expectations around porn performers. The sourcing is well below GNG for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). OK. But this actress might meet GNG: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hull-porn-star-poppy-morgan-2877489 ; https://www.anorak.co.uk/377943/celebrities/hull-mps-want-page-3-banned-but-the-official-brochure-says-poppy-morgan-is-part-of-the-city-culture.html ; https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2006/11/23/porn-star-to-teach-dancers/ as these sources mention that her notability as porn star exists outside WP and outside the industry. At least, that's how I see things. And I consider her notable enough to have a page. If any ATD exists, feel free to redirect. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point with non reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thank you for providing a link showing these sources are non-reliable according to a clear consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Ha ha ha

so a tabloid. A short article with no byline on an online news source with no indication of fact checking and a very short piece on a local news sources that allows user submitted content that has no byline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree they are not RSs! Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not what I meant. "ha ha ha" - so a tabloid is not exactly what I would call a thoughtful reply containing a link nor referring to a clear consensus. But here's a link and a consensus. Wp:Tabloid states that well-established tabloids should be used with care. The Mirror is a well-established tabloid. I wouldn't call it plainly unreliable (and if the other 2 aren't bylined, this one is). These are not great sources, especially the other 2, but read my !vote and you might understand what I mean. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloids are not reliable sources for the gng but may be used with caution to flesh out an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through those sources, really was reading them for the articles! Still, for mind, she doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete/Draftify - Mushy Yank provides enough sources to suggest that the subject potentially could be notable, but they aren't enough to meet GNG or warrant keeping this article. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There really isn't much of any kind of coverage, outside of [22]. AVN wins are fine, but we don't count them towards notability, so there is no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other example of coverage: The Yorkshire Post (bylined article in a very respectable newspaper) also states she's a notable pornographic actress. And that's exactly my point. I don't wish to challenge the decision on this Wikipedia to have an insanely high bar for notability of personalities from the pornographic industry, but, then, GNG requirements should apply to them in all fairness. Not to mention the fact that the city of Hull has found her notable enough to have her figuring in one of their official brochures! (Not that they would have had a hard time finding notable people associated with Hull) (read presented articles). I'll leave it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 12 July 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!} 11:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EOdisha Summit

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

Fails the general notability guideline. No independent sources to speak of. Also bundling:

SaUp2014 (talk · contribs) may need closer attention to determine whether any more of their articles merit deletion. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Odisha. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable conference, and the per-year articles are filled with unsourced minutiae. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Articles make no attempt to establish a credible claim of significance, let alone notability. No independent sources of any kind and few sources in general. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure about A7 but definitely fails WP:NORG/GNG. Google search only returns their websites and these articles. C F A 💬 21:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate its notability and importance.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:08, 16 July 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. – Joe (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jite Agbro

AfDs for this article:

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

Main reason is that the subject fails all 4 criteria of WP:ARTIST and the article reads like a Vanity page with the addition of the website and specific details such as "Agbro focuses on non-verbal communication and the idea that everyone presents themselves within a system" which is taken from non-independent/bias non-reliable references (museum which exposed the work of the subject). The subject fails WP:NBIO with lacking significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Nigeria, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The “Selected exhibitions” section clearly helps understand how this pass NCREATIVE 4b. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is TOOSOON for this artist to have an encyclopedia article because they do not yet have the professional track record of reviews, articles about their work, chapters in art history books, museum or national gallery collections, etc. that is required. The work is beautiful however all of the exhibitions are at non-notable venues, except the Bainbridge Island Museum, which is a small regional museum. Fails both GNG and NARTIST, and does not meet NCREATIVE 4b criteria at this time; perhaps in a few more years after more critical attention is received. A "significant exhibition" would be at a venue like the Venice Bienniale, Whitney Biennial, Documenta, the Carnegie International. In the previous deletion discussion, WomenArtistUpdates provided an excellent source assessment summary table why this does not meet GNG. It does not seem like much changed in the article since then other than formatting. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Nice stuff but WP:TOOSOON. See source assessment table created July 1 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jite Agbro. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: Would this article help at all? It has quotes from the artist, but I'd also say that it provides a review of the exhibition to some degree. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significa, I know you are addressing WAU, not me, however I wanted to chime in that yes, the PBS article you linked helps, it's significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 18 July 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. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Tourism Awards

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

Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Travel and tourism, and South Korea. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.

[23][24][25][26]

I can look up more upon request.

Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing quite a bit of significant coverage on Korean sources, especially on some bigger Korean news sites like YTN like here [27][28] and Kyunghyang Shinmun (linked above). If anything, the Wikipedia article just needs some updating. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 02:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Sufficient coverage exists in a number of reliable Korean-language sources. The article absolutely needs work, but the sources do exist. GhostOfNoMeme 09:10, 18 July 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!} 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Maikop

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

Likely an unedited machine translation. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the existing citations are all primary sources, helping to explain the army-size exaggerations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the document of the Russian military historical archive is not specified correctly, and cannot be verified through the archive, the article really needs to be deleted for lack of sources Dushnilkin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or draftify. Very bad (poorly formatted/hard to verify) references (they seem WP:PRIMARY, likely 19th century, and some have vague descriptions such as "Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives"), no interwiki. My BEFORE only gives hits for 1942 battle of such name, so while I am not saying it is a WP:HOAX it is so poorly referenced as to raise major red flags (think also Zhemao hoaxes). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS in article or anywhere else, so topic (if it even exists) is not notable; and the possibility of a WP:HOAX or an AI experiment is significant in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with what was said above. I also believe that the sources found here are primary and would not contribute towards notability even if they were to verify the content. Aintabli (talk) 09:21, 12 July 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. Owen× ☎ 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmic Free Music Foundation

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

I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Internet, Websites, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I could find no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, unfortunately. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:29, 17 July 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. Owen× ☎ 09:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Tudu

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was previously deleted because it fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and it still holds true. Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per WP:BIO. The subject does not meet notability and biography is not enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Poor sources with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply having a biography isn't enough for inclusion. If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, the article could be rewritten and resubmitted for review. Waqar💬 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @RangersRus:, @Iwaqarhashmi:, I found [29], [30], [31], [[32], [33], [34], [35], among many more English and Hindu sources (not to mention other Indian languages. Cleary was sigifnicant ifgure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Das osmnezz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Most of these sources are interviews and paid promotions and do not help pass WP:NFOOTY. The player has not garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements because he has not played at an international level and he has not played for an entirely professional league to satisfy WP:GNG. He is an upcoming player but it is too early to warrant a page on this subject because of insufficient significant achievements.

RangersRus (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)'[reply]

ALl of the sources have tons of secondary coverage that I will gladly cite if asked and there is no indication that any of them are paid promotions... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to have ever played in a notable league BFC Aspie (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I wanted to vote the opposite way, because this article is absolutely atrocious in its current state, but there is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the closer, all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cleary was significant figure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"called up to the senior India national team" is not notability. If he played for national team, that would be something to consider. If he was just called up then it is also case of WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats one of my more minor points, my point is that he was considered such a good player and significant figure in Indian lower leagues that he was called up to senior nationl team. This proves my point that all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Either way, he has many secondary sources about him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said has to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am saying he passes neither. Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL because he hasn't played professional football and the sources that exist don't justify WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how this article doesnt meet WP:GNG. Im listening... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team.. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arjun Tudu's page should be deleted because he doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability standards.Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:00, 05 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to the closer, nobody has explained how he doesnt pass WP:GNG which he clarly does... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are excellent references. The article is crap, but the subject clearly meets GNG. The previous deletion discussion years ago is irrelevant, given the amount of media coverage is major national papers since then. The GNG policy clearly supports keeping. I don't see what policy supports deletion. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the comment about him being an "upcoming player" is nonsense as the subject is 34 years old. Per Das osmnezz and Nfitz, I cannot see any policy-based arguments for deletion here. The sources mentioned in this discussion would help the development of the article, but coupled with what is already in place there, they appear to establish a sufficient level of notability. C 679 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The article already contains a couple of reliable sources, it's easy to find more. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:58, 15 July 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. Owen× ☎ 09:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Global School

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

Likely this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Though per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME, schools are presumed notable, but here, I question its notability. It's a pure case of WP:TOOSOON. Welp, a redirect to the founder, Mohan G. Valrani may be good for WP:ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schooloutcomes does not claim that schools are presumed notable. It states that notability has to be proven conform Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). The Banner talk 08:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 July 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. The views for deletion carry more P&G weight, but failed to achieve consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafqat Baloch

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

The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in depth based on any independent or reliable sources thus it discouraged me from opposing the idea of D-Prod.223.123.5.35 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry Saqib; although I share with you that this article exists in a terrible condition and has a plenty of WP:OR, we can't deny the fact that it passes WP:ANYBIO and should be kept. Nawaiwaqt has a detailed article of Shafqat Baloch dated 2 September 2019, although not much Nation reports his death in more than a paragraph. This should also be helpful. His role has had a significant impact, as well. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources have no in-depth coverage. AmericanY (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO, He has received the Sitara-e-Jurat Award twice. Youknow? (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has long been established that two third-level gallantry awards are not sufficient to qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1, even before WP:SOLDIER was deprecated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage [36] enough to pass notability. 2404:3100:144D:486A:1:0:87B8:496E (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Briefly mentioned in articles about the movie (source 7), but I don't find much of anything about this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a say on WP:ANYBIO, leaving aside coverage needed to pass GNG? _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aafi, But we don't have a consensus that WP:ANYBIO # 1 override the GNG requirement. WP:ANYBIO also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. Fwiw, there's an ongoing debate about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks, this is something I was looking for. Notability is always presumed. WP:GNG also says it, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." However, thanks for the link and I believe the outcome of this AfD should consider the result of this discussion that you have linked. I'd be glad to change my opinion given where that discussion on WP:ANYBIO goes. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 13:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lack of coverage is a lack of coverage, regardless of which notability criteria you choose. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aafi. Nawaiwaqt covered his death, Aslam Lodhi has covered Baloch twice ([37], [38]) in Nawaiwaqt. Note, most of the coverage is in Urdu language and is clearly visible if someone searches with Urdu string ("شفقت بلوچ") on Google Books there is a lot of coverage which is visible with snippet previews. Some coverage in Phool visible here, some in-depth coverage here, this book describes him as a national hero in the visible snippet, this book says he fought alongside Aziz Bhatti - another national hero, this and this book describes how he fought the battle. There is plenty available on Google Books to stitch together a detailed biography about him, so clearly meets WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Thank you. 5.30.172.24 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is also subject of a film. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- امین اکبر, OK, but does being subject of a film make someone qualify for a WP bio? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in [39] [40], [41] indicates notability. As per The Nation, he was awarded Sitara-e-Jurat (third highest military award of Pakistan) twice [42]. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After reviewing the discussion above and all the reliable sources for this article, I am convinced this article is worth keeping...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Prestige

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Sourced with unreliable references. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, it existed but this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 15:43, 16 July 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Obaseki

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

Article on non notable lawyer who has received neither significant nor trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All of the 20 sources cited are primary sources and are unreliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. The subject did not meet WP:GNG Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:04, 15 July 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. Owen× ☎ 08:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile secure gateway

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

The article appears to attempt to launder a trademark and/or rarely used buzzword as a legitimate topic in compute security. The article and inbound links were all created by what appears to be a single purpose account. There are essentially zero academic mentions of this term. Brandon (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails to establish notability within the computer security field. It lacks sufficient coverage in academic and reliable sources, which is a key condition for inclusion on the platform. This suggests it may be a trademark or a buzzword, not a recognised concept. The creation of the article and related content by a single-purpose account raises doubts about the topic's neutrality and authenticity, as well as its importance and relevance.--AstridMitch (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one company's attempt to monetize a buzzword. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 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 Living Tombstone. Malinaccier (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero One (album)

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

Same as the other nominations I made shortly before this one to come from the Living Tombstone, this album is a notability failure that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or NALBUM. All but two sources here are either Spotify or a blatant primary source like a merchandise store. The two sources that are actually reliable are 1 and 11, with 1 being a passing mention and 11 not even mentioning the album once. Any material worthwhile for this album is already included in the article for the band itself. λ NegativeMP1 06:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. λ NegativeMP1 06:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to completely over rely on primary sources. As such there is no evidence of notability.

TheBritinator (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Living Tombstone: as an WP:ATD since I found no adequate sourcing for this album. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:19, 17 July 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 Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birbhum Pharmacy School

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

It fails WP:SCH, no reliable source has been cited Pinakpani (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. CptViraj (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge anything useful with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology. Division of that university — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to be sure this is an appropriate target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per rsjaffe. Mccapra (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Deans Trophy season

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

Apparently non notable school rugby competition involving only six schools. Mccapra (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Fiji. Mccapra (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article about high-school sports, sourced only to local newspaper coverage.Walsh90210 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 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 Panama Papers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe (whistleblower)

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

I 'WP:BOLDly redirected this to Panama Papers, however was reverted by an IP claiming that the redirect was odd given that no consensus had been obtained on either talk page. The subject has no independent notability outside of their role in the release of the panama papers. I'm not sure if this quite fits into WP:BLP1E given that the subject is anonymous and we don't know if they are still on this planet or not, however it certainly fits into the spirit of that policy given that the subject's notability is only understood insofar as they leaked the panama papers. Material about the subject is already covered in Panama Papers so there is no need for a merge and I am seeking community consensus that the redirect be restored. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Economics. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, Finance, Law, Politics, and Panama. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Basically what TarnishedPath said, but Subject is not WP:NOTABILITY enough, and the stuff in this article is already stated in both the opening paragraphs and the Newsroom logistics of the Panama Papers article, so I believe this is a fair redirect. Sharrdx (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We don't know enough about John Doe to fill him out independently of Panama Papers Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but also consider this as a merger as the information is already in the target article. I think this meets not only WP:BLP1E, but also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. This person seeks to be a low profile individual and remain anonymous so there is little prospect of any biographical information. It makes sense to have all the information in one article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. and others. A case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the logic above and a merge/redirect is the best option considering BLP1E HighKing 17:16, 16 July 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 How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise? as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clappers Records

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

I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [43], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [44]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 11 July 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 01:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoric (iii) acid

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

"Hypothetical oxyacid of fluorine" that cannot chemically exist [45] and the only references to "fluoric acid" I could find online (including the Google Books link in the article) are as substitutions for hydrofluoric acid. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't even appear to be hypothetical, there are literally zero sources in Gscholar or Books that mention it. Chemical HOAX? Lack of sourcing regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't sure on whether it would qualify as a hoax under Wikipedia's guidelines otherwise I would have CSD tagged it under G3. The article creator also tried to publish several similar articles through AfC which were all denied. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also creator looks like an SPA. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually,i translate this article from Esperanto to english .I dont know that.I very sorry if i have any mistake. Junurita (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Translation to learn how to avoid breaking copyright/license policy, and the importance of checking sources yourself. But more importantly, the editor who wrote that (and many other) eowiki chemical articles is well-known for making up complete chemical nonsense or writing their own hypotheses rather than using cited reliable sources. The WP:BURDEN is on you. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V except simple mechanical molecular-formula claim. And all other claims are definitely bogus: there's no possible way to state as fact the chemical, physical, or other properties of a chemical that is stated to not even exist. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hypothetical substance with the formula HFO₃. The only source given is a dictionary published in 1817. My search for better sources found nothing. The term "fluoric acid" is used by homeopaths as a synonym for hydrofluoric acid, HF. Wikipedia has articles on fictional and hypothetical subjects, but only if they've been written about. Here we have no evidence that the term has ever been used. Maproom (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is fantasy chemistry, with no place in a serious source of genuine information. Athel cb (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single reference to a book published in 1817 is an immediate fail after 200 years of chemistry which hasn't managed to characterise it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above. A no brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That book is talking abut what we would call hydrofluoric acid. There appear to be no reliable writings on HFO₃ ina google scholar search, so it is not even hypothetically studied. I almost labelled this as a hoax when in draft stage. But I do not believe it was intentionally misleading, just wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article on the hypothetical oxyacid of fluorine fails WP:V due to a lack of verifiable sources. There are no references in Google Scholar or Books that mention this substance. The only source provided is a dictionary from 1817, which is outdated and insufficient. Modern chemistry does not recognize this hypothetical substance, and the term "fluoric acid" is often misused as a synonym for hydrofluoric acid. Without reliable and contemporary sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines.Master rollo (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V. If we can’t find it, or verify it, it’s not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 17 July 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 03:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Constellation

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP. References almost exclusively covers planned partnerships with more notable companies. Brandon (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Spaceflight. Brandon (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Page already removed per G5. Owen× ☎ 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in the State of Palestine

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

Created by a now-banned sockpuppet in violation of a topic-ban. This page seems like an invalid DAB, but perhaps someone here can salvage it. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Palestine. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is unnecessary; I've tagged it with WP:G5. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 11 July 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 01:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sensorica

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

Project and organization both appear to lack notability, especially under WP:NORG. Article lacks sourcing and I was unable to find significant coverage via research. Brandon (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Canada. Brandon (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno (programming language)

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

Didn't find any results beyond the download page for the interpreter. IntGrah (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntGrah (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage at all. One of countless programming languages that received no attention. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:42, 13 July 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.

[1] Buba, Yusuf. Mastering Python. A Comprehensive Journey from Beginner to Professional. BookRix. ISBN 3755445743.

[2] Gunderloy ·, Mike. Coder to Developer Tools and Strategies for Delivering Your Software. Wiley. pp. 277–278. ISBN 9780782151251.

[3] Thorn, Alan. Game Engine Design and Implementation. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 562. ISBN 9781449656485.

[4] Thron, Alan. Cross Platform Game Development. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 359. ISBN 9780763782818.

[5] Schummer, Rick; Borup, Rick; Adams, Jacci. Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions. Hentzenwerke Publishing. pp. 429–450. ISBN 9781930919327.

[6] Nasucha, Mohammad; Rahmat, Revo; Satrio, Muhammad; Khornelius, John Bryan; Hermawan, Hendi; Handoko, Prio (3 May 2024). "GUI Development for An Image Enhancement Application to Support Computer Vision". International Conference on Artificial Intelligence For Internet of Things: 1–4. doi:10.1109/AIIoT58432.2024.10574765.

[7] Tyndall, John B. (15 October 2012). "Building an effective software deployment process". SIGUCCS: 109–114. doi:10.1145/2382456.2382482.

[8] Signoret, J.; Balme, S.; Theis, J.M. (October 2013). "A friendly tool to remotely follow-up fusion machines experiments". Fusion Engineering and Design. 88 (6–8): 1455–1459. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.03.023.

[9] "linguist/lib/linguist/languages.yml at master · github-linguist/linguist". GitHub.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]