Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 21	July 23 >

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Majority Foundation

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

Not much claim to notability besides helping publish a notable magazine, Ms.. Article credits FMF with helping get several pieces of notable legislation passed, but does not cite a source proving that they played a large role in passing that legislation. I can't really find any in-depth coverage on Google, and the pre-internet coverage cited on the page isn't very convincing. An editor removed my PROD on this page on the basis that they found two new sources on Newspapers.com; however, one of those sources is a profile of Mavis Leno that simply mentions FMF in passing, while the other is about women's groups more broadly, only briefly mentioning FMF in a paragraph about its president, Eleanor Smeal. The editor who removed the PROD suggested a redirect to the magazine's page, which I wouldn't be mad about, but I think Smeal's page would be a better redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Politics, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. There is definitely some notability here although it might or might not be enough for an article. The Google Scholar search turns up two papers with the name of the organisation in the actual title: [1] and [2] in two different publications. One is unrelated to the magazine, which seems to point away from that as a merge target. There is also some Google News coverage but a lot of it is passing mentions. Here is some coverage of a lawsuit they brought [3] and [4]. Is it enough for a keep? I'm not sure, but it's definitely close enough not to be a delete and probably also not a redirect, at least not without merging some of the content. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found further peer reviewed materials: "Unequal Virtual Terrains: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)" "RAWA was briefly allied with the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) when this United States (US)-based organisation also made theplight of women in Afghanistan a priority. However, disagreements between the two organisations soon came to light. This article examines the experiences of RAWA's interactions with FMF using Appadurai’s imaginary landscapes as a theoretical basis." South Asian Survey 20(1), 2013 pp 6-21. "Amplifying Our Voices: Feminist Scholars Writing for the Public" Feminist Formations, 32(2), 2020, pp. 29-51. "Expecting the unexpected. Non-profit women’s organizations’ media responses to anti-abortion terrorism" Journal of communication management, 17(1), 2013, pp.341-363. WP:NEXIST, passes the WP:GNG. Merge with Ms. would be inappropriate; depsite the present relationship both have quite distinct histories. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided by Goldsztajn. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly. Nearly every major U.S. Election has someone endorsed by Feminist Majority PAC which links to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated above. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:28, 29 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!} 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CougarTech

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

Not a notable group. A high school FIRST Robotics Competition team; no independent coverage in the article. [5] (a local weekly) was the best search result I could find. Covers multiple school districts, so neither is a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to suggest its notability. The existing two sources in the article are as good as minus zero and there are no sources elsewhere to improve it. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time; lacking WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable group, fails WP:NORG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:27, 29 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 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEFR companion volume

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and is poorly written. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge into CEFR what is referenced (80% is unreferenced or irrelevant). 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge the only 4 references to CEFR. Plutocow (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the vauluable, and reliable segements into CEFR. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that a Merge to CEFR is impossible as this page is a Redirect. If you have the right script installed, the link shows up as green. Did you mean another target article? Please check target articles before proposing them so that they are feasible tartgets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 22 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!} 23:38, 22 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Just

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions; can't find anything else about him. Declined AfC draft that was moved to mainspace by the creator. Borderline A7. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for this individual yields very little on google. I don't see how this could ever be sourced so that it meets notability requirements. Garsh (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources cited present nothing to indicate notability. Of all, only one mentioned the subject and that is even an interview which is not RS. Again search performed returned nothing. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff boasts an extensive track record of features in prominent global companies. These include Triple Pundit, Community News Service, LLC, SOCO Partners, New York Post, METRO, North American Clean Energy, Forbes, Renewable Energy Magazine, Solar Power World, and PV Magazine. Please reconsider. ForHumanityIAm (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he leads a computer company. That’s not a claim for notability. Many people have had leadership positions in similar businesses. We are not a web host that lists every one of thousands of business people in NYC. Nor do I see any evidence per WP:N. I would not oppose a redirect to his company. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely attempt to promote the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 29 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!} 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hellinger

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMIC, etc. I see no real argument for notability. Text is plainly WP:PROMOTIONAL. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and South Africa. jps (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t see a single independent, reliable source, and this is also original research, which we’ve never, ever published. I would change my opinion if better sources were found about the subject. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 29 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!} 23:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adonis Amaya

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that appears to be here is routine game coverage, with nothing that can be considered WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 11:56, 25 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!} 21:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie D'Souza

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable comedian; refunded after soft deletion but no changes made since article was restored. Fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. I would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and BEFORE searches (both at time of original nomination and after the refund) did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still no sourcing to speak of, [6] is a brief bio for a comedy festival. Other than that, what's used in the article is as the nom describes, brief mentions or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,bunch of non RS sources from non notable podcasts, show announcement. Fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are almost entirely unreliable - blogs, podcasts, and interviews. Searches on social media shows that he has 990/4,378 or 22.6 % of my followers on X (f/k/a Twitter), and only 1/2 of the followers on Instagram as his management. Social media are not reliable sources, but they can be evidence of popular celebrity, fame, or notoriety. All in all, he’s neither notable nor notorious, yet; see WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 29 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths test

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

This reads as an advert hiding as an article. It is only about one product, and I do not see this as a neutral article that should be in Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Psychology. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertising, poor sourcing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a purpose to advertise. Tried to be as honest and objective as possible. Don't have any affiliation with them. For the sources, I followed a reliable list for guidance to add relative and reputable sources. ScirIvan (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScirIvan, the sources are things like "18 Free and Paid Personality Tests To Find Your Career Fit". These aren't reliable sources. The kind of thing we'd be looking for with this is academic sources discussing the test or the use of the test. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to personality test. High5 Test is the correct name of the subject of the article, and "Strengths test" could refer to CliftonStrengths, Strength Deployment Inventory or other similarly named assessments. The available coverage does not indicate that the High5 Test is notable in itself. There is scholarly discussion of a "high five model" (Cosentino and Solano, Quito-Calle and Cosentino, de la Iglesia and Solano), but there is no evidence that this discussion is of the High5 Test/High5 Strengths Test. Some promotional coverage like the Indeed sponcon mentioned above; some potentially fringe coverage in PositivePsychology.com but it's more of a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Book results are also trivial, passing mentions. So I don't think the subject matter is notable but there's a case to redirect the title. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as independent notability not established. Citations included appear to be mostly listicles and pay-for-play content. I see no reason to redirect since I don't think "strengths test" is a particularly common search term (and it doesn't seem to be a big target from the article stats). jps (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to “delete” if that’s the consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 29 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Mazzola

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief ESPN bio [7] and routine transfer mentions [8], neither of which are useful for notability here. Sourcing in the article is of the same quality, non-helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here besides routine transactional info, with a failure of the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. C 679 15:49, 29 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High School Football Heroes

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Punknews staff review of one of their releases. toweli (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rather minor ska band. Does not meet any criterion of WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 22 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Hero Squad toys

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

Only has one source and seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Toys, and Lists. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 23 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!} 21:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American National Ballet

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

Non-notable ballet company. Checking it via WP:BEFORE shows the only WP:SIGCOV there is the failed company from South Carolina, as it is a subject of a murder case. None of those are for this company. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Organizations, and Minnesota. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I could find for the first version of this dance group [9], no sourcing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 22 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 action‎. Bad-faith nomination based solely on an ongoing content dispute. A topic cannot both meet and fail GNG based on which editor wrote about it. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mishri

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

Delete:Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:40, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Colors_TV#Current_broadcasts (listed there with a source) or to Lakshmi Baramma#Adaptations (not mentioned there yet but maybe better target), at least until more coverage exists (the program is recent); but not opposed to Keep given the coverage that the production received (not great sources but could justify a page imv if other users agree). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note I've blocked the article creator, RedParrot, as a Confirmed sock account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the nominator gives some explanation on what's going on between Mishri, Mishri (TV series), Draft:Mishri, and Draft:Mishri (TV series), because what I see in the history & logs gives me the impression that this may be a move to eliminate a "competing" version for some odd reason. I'm not sure how else to interpret edit summaries like Restoring my article and moving to draftspace, i will fight for my right. Since my article is better in terms of content as well. and Moving my article to draftspace to fight for illegal move done by administrator by moving newer and less content page instead of mine.
The article as such may be a bit WP:TOOSOON, but might as well keep it for the time being, to avoid unnecessary fiddling with deletion and re-creation soon after. Gamapamani (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gamapamani let me explain you the whole scenario then. I had first created the draft at Draft:Mishri (now Draft:Mishri (TV series)), meticulously by slowly gathering info and incorporating the details patiently and waiting for AFC approval to shift to mainspace. Then comes @RedParrot, does not check that a draft exists, makes his own draft at Draft:Mishri (TV series) by copy and pasting my draft content in his article as you can see [10] . He then moved his article to mainspace at Mishri (TV Series) while i patiently waited to add production section and details and then move through afc process. Liz approved my draft and placed my draft in mainspace as Mishri [11]. Then comes RedParrot requesting to Liz on talk page to move his article to Mishri and remove mine but I could not see any reason as to why because I had created the draft earlier than him and my article even was more expanded than him [12], SafariScribe comes and just on the basis of request replaces my article with his solely on basis of "request" which you can see here [13]. I tried solving things by talking to which I received no reply [14] [15], leading to me to restore my page and move it to draft at Draft:Mishri (TV series) until a conclusion is derived. Hardworking editors who follow all processes are deprived of the article creation credit while sockpuppet requests are being accepted to displace an article. Imsaneikigai (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Imsaneikigai That indeed doesn't seem very fair, and I can understand the frustration over being denied article creation credit, but I still have to ask: would your vote of Delete:Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV apply to any Mishri or only versions started by someone else? Because if you've initiated AfD while intending to re-publish the very same article yourself shortly after - and indeed your version was already in mainspace (Liz approved my draft and placed my draft in mainspace as Mishri) - then using these particular arguments IMHO would seem somewhat disingenuous. I wouldn't object to deleting the sock version and reinstating yours due to them copy and pasting [your] draft content. Gamapamani (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gamapamani. Imsaneikigai seems to have filed this nomination purely based on jealousy issues. Apart from that, they also seem to be following WP:OWN Notsomelodramatic (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol..Not recently created another sockpuppet account saying this! This is not jealousy but dissapointment when one's effort and time is not valued. I think you are RedParrot's sockpuppet. Imsaneikigai (talk) 20:07, 28 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 List of White Collar characters. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Caffrey

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

Fails WP:GNG non notable TV character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in quite bad shape at the moment but just from a quick google search I found these - [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20], and many more which altogether counts towards GNG. I have never watched the show but it seems obvious that the character is notable due to his popularity just in the first few pages of Google search, and that is excluding sources in the archives. I also found several essays on the character (e.g. [21] and [22]), and whilst they are not able to be used in the article, it does show the character's importance. If the page is not kept I would recommend Draftifying and merging to List of White Collar characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of White Collar characters - While there are plenty of sources mentioning the character, not a whole lot of them really have much to say about the character themself that would really justify a split out article. Many of the ones linked to above, and that I found in my own searches, are either general reviews/overviews of the series that talk about him in the overall discussion of the show, or just plot recaps. Essentially, I am not seeing much that would be able to really build an article that would not either be duplicative of the overall coverage of the show already found in the main series article or character list, or overly detailed plot summaries like what the article is currently like. As the character does not seem to have any notability or coverage outside of being the main character of a notable show, per WP:NOPAGE, it would be best to cover the character as part of the overall discussion of the show rather than as a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. The character can be covered in the list, per WP:ATD. If someone wanted to expand the WP:PLOT summary at the main White Collar article, that's how we usually cover the in-universe events around a fictional protagonist. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 29 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× ☎ 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish-Georgian War (1921)

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

Looks made up, couldn't find any WP:RS on this supposed "war". Article was filled with non-WP:RS/WP:VER issues which I have now removed, so there isn't a single actual WP:RS in this article currently. This is not surprising, considering the WP:TENDENTIOUS track record of the creator of this article, see [23] [24] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BaharatlıCheetos2.0. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I spent some time reviewing this new article and came to the conclusion it was probably nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources as well. Aintabli (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to track down any supporting material of any merit. This reads like a nationalist screed.Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poorly sourced; all sources seem to be Turkish articles and pages of questionable reliability; some of them are not even verifiable, as the links seem to not work at all. Piccco (talk) 13:15, 23 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× ☎ 18:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population Connection

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

Hasn't gotten much news coverage or done anything especially notable. Of the few sources cited on this page, several are the group's own website, and I can't find anything much better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be some decent coverage here covering various reports the group has published along with some controversial actions taken, as seen in [[25]](1/2), [[26](2/2), [[27]], [[28]](1/2), [[29]](2/2), and [[30]]. I think there is enough here to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Let'srun. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NC Newsline is good, it discusses the organization and its history with some attention to details. I've also added some other sources and expanded the article to incorporate criticisms and reduce peacock language. HighKing 20:41, 28 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 Jason Kander#Let America Vote. Owen× ☎ 18:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let America Vote

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

Let America Vote got some national media attention when it first launched, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist and the fact that the group's founder, Jason Kander, was coming off a high-profile Senate run. The fact that they seem to have gotten barely any national coverage since their launch (nothing cited on this page and I couldn't really find anything) shows they aren't really notable. Most of the coverage I could find was primarily about LAV's partner group, End Citizens United. The editor who removed the PROD on this page recommended a redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote, which I agree with. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote per nom. Presently not notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote: As the editor who removed the PROD, I agree that the subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV at this time. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreating a standalone article in the future should better sourcing emerge. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above makes the most sense to me. Woko Sapien (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If PROD is removed because of WP:PRESERVE but there's agreement that the GNG bar is not met, then a redirect/merge (WP:BOLD or WP:PROM depending on how controversial it's likely to be) could be attempted without needing to first bring it to AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:46, 29 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× ☎ 18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarla International Academy

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

Fails NSCHOOL, GNG and no SIGCOV found anywhere. Only source is a dead PRIMARY link. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 26 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jones (physician)

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

Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Australia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging, which was a little interesting because of overlap with his name and that of at least one other person. The cited papers on the page currently have very few citations. IMO there is not anywhere near enough here for WP:NPROF. I also don't see any reviews for his book for WP:NAUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 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!} 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattix Corner, Indiana

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

Bake calls this a "village", but I find no corroborating evidence; indeed, I'm getting nothing but clickbait. Aerials and topos show a crossroads, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a couple of houses near the crossroads, but only around 5 or 6. Maybe it used to be bigger? Bake appears to cite WPA, which from the bibliography is the Works Progress Administration, in either "Indiana: A Guide to the Hoosier State" or "Indiana Writers Files of the Federal Manuscript Project", likely the first. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching inside the first "Mattix" does not appear. The second I can't find. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find nothing to suggest this is anything more than an old crossroads on the Rossville Pike named for the early-settler Mattix family that had a farm nearby. It never had a post office that I can find. jengod (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we have no positive confirmation that this place even qualifies for NGEO consideration, then we have no reason to retain it. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 29 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. Closing this a bit early. Consensus is clear and overwhelming. No need to drag this out. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Communist Party

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

Organization formed yesterday, and no indication of notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. They have a website with a declaration and a currently empty map of chapters. All I can find on them online is a few posts on social media, less than a day old. Ineligible for speedy A7 or a move to draft, as it was a 2003 redirect to Communist Party USA. Wikishovel (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Wikishovel (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say to delete the article. Let's at least wait a bit and see if media outlets report on this. If they don't report anything in, say, a week, then we can delete. I personally don't think the article needs to be deleted instantly. Give it some time. This is a more minor story compared to everything else happening in the USA, and I don't blame the media for not instantly reporting on it. SSBelfastFanatic (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, give it a week for sources to come in. Zenphia1 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ – The party is absolutely not notable enough to have an article at the moment. If sources do report on it, great; it can be moved back into mainspace. If not, it can be deleted. Loytra (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any sources to prove notability. Do not agree with @Loytra as there's no point in draftifying article lacking any information and references.Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think I agree with you. I change my vote to delete. Loytra (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It appears to be a split from the CPUSA, so if it has not yet achieved notability it can be merged into History of the Communist Party USA under WP:WITHIN. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 15:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]
It shouldn't go under the history of the Communist Party USA. It's not a split and it's not significant. It seems like it's a crypto currency scheme as well with opportunists like Jackson Hinkle involved. SalladTX (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely zero connection to crypto currency other than the use of a blockchain which is a thing entirely separate from crypto currency itself Ryz3nGlory (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cypto currency was autogenerated by a memecoin website that scrapes twitter trends and turns them into coins. GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no references. A line about it on the CPUSA page would probably be enough. Sophie (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Communist Party USA. Zenphia1 (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous votes. Judging by the lack of any media attention, this party split is not notable on its own. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Communist Party USA, as suggested above. --Psammeticus (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Communist Party USA. No sources whatsoever and no establishment of notability. — Czello ^(music) 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS in article that need transfer to History of the Communist Party USA. SocDoneLeft (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unique enough to be notable Braganza (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define "unique". NightJasian (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Improve - Please see Talk page on the actual article for an explanation. I believe this article can become a much better article but may require restriction to prevent political bias or vandalism. Please insert into WikiProject Socialism as High Priority. Madamepestilence (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes zero sense to rank it High Priority within the Socialism project, or any level of priority at all. No notability has yet been demonstrated. LaborHorizontal (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of the Communist Party USA or Jackson Hinkle per previous votes. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant and clear vandalism being pumped by spam accounts on X/Twitter as can be seen in posts such as https://x.com/VanCommunist/status/1815489685567017259 69.113.236.98 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are sources supporting including this in the History of the Communist Party USA then I'm open to changing my mind but I don't believe that this even reaches that threshold. andrew.robbins (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This needs to go. I also couldn't find any sources supporting this party's notability. It'll probably be expanded upon later if it gets the appropriate press, but definitely not now. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just deleted the 'controversy' section which was added very recently with an admission by the ip that they had no references. Someone with more knowledge on the subject may wish to look at all the other recent edits to decide what is (and isn't) vandalism,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>[reply]

Delete A fringe alt-right online sect has some of its leaders meet one day and make a website. That does not mean it is notable at all. If Party of Communists USA could not get an article, this "party" certainly should not, particularly considering that there is no proof this is actually a physical organization. Also, 75% of the signatures and organizations mentioned in its founding document either do not exist or publicly indicated that they never signed on to join this "party." The only reference which even mentions this organization is self-published. This has no place on Wikipedia. SociusMono1976 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article keeps getting vanadalized Bubblesorg talk — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>[reply]
Delete - This party is largely a social media phenomenon and not a notable political actor in its own right. Compare this to, for instance, DSA's ongoing influence in protest organizing, labor organizing, and electoral politics, or CPUSA's historical influence as a major source of radical action in the 20th century. Socialist Alternative has been significant in Seattle's local politics, and the PSL has done substantial protest organizing. On the other hand, ACP has yet to demonstrate any significance. At most, it might deserve a mention on Jackson Hinkle's page, maybe a mention on CPUSA's page if notability can be demonstrated (though I would even note that many of the locals listed as signatories for its founding publicly denied involvement; and still no media has reported on this "party" as far as I know). LaborHorizontal (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I have to agree with this sentiment. I say we give them a week, maybe two. If nothing comes of it, delete the article and make a brief mention on Hinkle's page. Madamepestilence (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I left a message in the discussion page of the article but I still have to say again, I dont get why you insist on this so much. It is just another Internet "movement" based on no serious ideology but frustration, which not really lacking in the current American political climax; I dont understand why you believe it can achieve anything. Based on how they are on Twitter, I hope they wont do anything in real life, these people are dangerous.

Aside from all that, this article is self-published and not notable yet mean not notable and shouldnt be kept for any duration of time. The most worrying thing is this article can legitimize them as well as make precedent for future similiar article. NightJasian (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A flash-in-the-pan event happening a day ago on some parts of political Twitter. No indication of importance. Stranfreid (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)— Stranfreid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't appear to have any real chapters, some of it's claimed chapters have apparently come forward denying any association. I personally think delete until it's actually something real. PierreTheTsar (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least draftify. A google search revealed no reliable coverage of this party. I don't have a Crystal Ball, so its possible that coverage of this party will emerge. Especially if they nominate a candidate a President for president. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization will obviously continue to grow, it just started. It is real. HDGVII (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)— HDGVII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Any source to back it up? NightJasian (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify unless there are more sources about the new fringe sect. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near notable enough, no SIGCOV, no serious argument to keep. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party has been confirmed to exist by the CPUSA themselves. GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing a Party created "2 days ago" on Wikipedia is really bad. Do we know who created this page, is it a member of this Party. The US and the world have millions of political parties, that come and go yearly, in real life and on the Internet. This party has nothing notable and definitely, most of us are here because we saw them on X. We can delete this and re-create it if they ever have an infuence. NightJasian (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources showing notability of the subject required for an article. That the organization verifiably exists is alone not enough to have an article without any notable coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also speedily moved and redirected this title back to the actual notable subject it previously pointed to, as this was a reasonable term for users searching for that subject, particularly during a high profile election, and should not instead be used as promotion for a non-notable organization. I've added a parenthetical disambiguation for the time being.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your good faith move: please don't move an article in the middle of a deletion discussion. If it's kept, it can be moved when the discussion ends. Wikishovel (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking genuinely, not in disagreement -- is that a policy? I do believe I've seen plenty of move discussions where a subject created over the title or redirect to an actual primary topic gets moved, rather than get a guaranteed 7 days as the new primary topic, but perhaps I'm mixing up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quoting WP:AFD:

While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.

Wikishovel (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose a merge to the notable party's page unless there is actual independent discussion in reliable sources (and regardless, it would perhaps be more suitable for the page of the party's founders, should that sourcing emerge).--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is currently no significant coverage of this organisation in independent, reliable sources. The only sources that actually discuss it are its own posts on its website and social media. Two of the sources this article cites don't even mention it. Merging is a non-starter, as there aren't currently any independent, reliable sources that can be used on other articles either. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to warrant its own page. Of the four sources linked, only two are actually related to the "party", and one of them is a Twitter/X post. May warrant a mention in the Jackson Hinkle page, but no more than that. Sisuvia (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and self-promoting. Garnet Moss (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of any secondary sources about the party itself rather than the figures in it blatantly violates notability criteria. A discussion can be had about potentially including it as a section in another article once/if there are secondary sources. Quinby (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't even merge: This party doesn't have any reliable reporting except from primary sources, it is not even notable enough to be merged into History of CPUSA or Jackson Hinkle. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Though this organization has some mildly notable figures behind it (which are notable for internet activism as opposed to IRL work), this org has not done anything significant, has not raised significant money, has not produced significant thinkers or unique thought. It hardly deserves an article, especially given the lack of anything happening in actual CPUSA. I do feel like the ACP for now might be a worthy footnote in the CPUSA page. However, this shouldn't have an article for the same reason we don't give every 20k follower X influencer an article unless theyve actually done something significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin03 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 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 Valencia, Bukidnon. ^Complex/_Rational 16:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Nebo, Valencia

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

Does not satisfy WP:NPLACE only sources I found is WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the place Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia, Bukidnon as per WP:NPLACE "disputed regions". Don't see any point in merging due to the lack of information. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia, Bukidnon. Fails WP:NPLACE per Vorann's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 02:17, 27 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

João Paulo (footballer, born June 1984)

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Google search on the name brought back nothing other than database sources. Soccerway link on the page with the corresponding DoB confirms he played one season in the Portuguese third tier in 2013-14. C 679 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. C 679 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator, clearly it does not satisfy WP:SPORTSCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed missing the WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. (To complete what nom said there are also user-generated sources next to the database references, even though that doesn't change anything). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CD Operário#Notable players. I found no indication that he meets WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 24 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. Clear consensus against deletion, but no consensus to merge. Discussion about a merger may continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 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) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 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 Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives. ^Complex/_Rational 16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago and North Western 7009

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

Redirect I had set up was reverted. Subject lacks independent notability from the EMD SD50 and should be redirect to that topic. No prejudice to a merge. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Illinois. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to ~~EMD SD50#Preservation~~. Level of detail in the article is fannish overkill for what is a perfectly ordinary example of the model. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives per below. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EMD SD50. Agree with the nom, however the article presents us with some information and references which would totally enhance the quality of the former. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives. Some of the background information from the article is also suitable to add to EMD SD50, but I think it makes the most sense to redirect to the locomotive's entry in the table on the museum article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information from the Trains Magazine news article to the EMD SD50 article back in 2022 when the preservation was first announced. Therefore I don't think we need to merge much, if anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with a redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives as an alternative to my suggested redirect above. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives. The brief burst of coverage that the locomotive received upon the preservation announcement (preservation of a locomotive model built until 1987 is news given how long locomotive lifespans go) isn't enough to pass GNG and support a dedicated article for this specific locomotive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:56, 23 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Boy

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

This article does not satisfy musical notability because it has no charting information and does not otherwise satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, and does not satisfy general notability because it does not refer to significant coverage by third parties. It was unilaterally moved from draft space to article space by the page creator with the edit summary It's been too long, so draftification is not appropriate. The Heymann criterion is to add charting information within six days.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Extended plays: Album has been out for multiple months and has not received satisfactory coverage for notability as nominator has stated, nor any requisite charting/sales figures. No point in returning it to drafts if it's just not a notable release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search of "Crooked Boy review" lists 2500 results. Premature to discount existence of good references to be added to article. Rockycape (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added charting information to the article from Official Charts. It appears that there's only charting information for the title track, but it performed fairly well on the aforementioned chart, so there's no reason to delete it. There was no charting information on the article because it was created before it was released. The article also passes WP:GNG, since there are several articles discussing the EP from different sources. Just because the information isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bandit Heeler (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that this nomination was based on events in the draft system, and the nominator likely failed to do the WP:BEFORE search that is required before a deletion debate in order to investigate notability. Also, deciding that notability had not been established just because of spotty sources in the draft version is a violation of WP:NEXIST. The album received widespread reliable coverage the week of its release, and it and one of its songs made the charts in two countries months before this nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be significant coverage on reliable sources. However, there may be some confusion if the coverage is due to the notability of the EP, or because of the popularity of the artist Ringo Starr of which notability is not inherited may be invoked. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:29, 23 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 speedily deleted‎ per criterion G5 by Ponyo, but any editor in good standing is welcome to create a redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 552

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

One more of the NGC stars. No commentary about the object in any scientific source. Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000)#501–600 C messier (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in the New General Catalogue. According to C. Seligman it may be a magnitude 14.6 star.[31] But he also notes, "There must have been something wrong with the way that Herschel's clock was running on the evening in question, as most of the objects he observed that night are nowhere near his reduced right ascensions." I think we can just take it as an error. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Praemonitus' suggestion. I do not see the subject fulfilling WP:NASTCRIT. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stars in the New General Catalogue. Technically, it does pass criterion 4 of WP:NASTCRIT, having been discovered before 1850, but the guideline states that meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee, and a WP:BEFORE search demonstrated it has not been covered in sufficient reliable sources, so a redirect is most appropriate here. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:548F:ADC2:7689:6C5E (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted by Ponyo on 20:41, 26 July 2024 with the comment, "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: Mass deletion of pages added by CalmPuff". Praemonitus (talk) 21:24, 27 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: closure amended per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 30 to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Storm (webtoon)

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

Fails significant coverage. The little commentary I found is in this CBR listicle, others are just plot summary and mention in other listicles. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could there be Korean sources we're missing? Not to say it might not be non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Maybe you can find them? I can't read Korean. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.

That said, I'm leaning delete. I'm a Korean speaker and didn't find much convincing sigcov. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:

gameca.com, three paragraphs as part of a list.
techm.kr, three paragraphs as part of a list.
news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
mk.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
yna.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
chosun.com, author quote, basically nothing.
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)

I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean here-- of the ones you've listed, the only widespread sources I can see are Nate News, Yonhap News (YNA), and Chosun Ilbo, none of which have coverage focused on said Webtoon. Though the KakaoPage website indicates that there's about 4 million subscribers to the Webtoon, I'd still argue delete here since I can't find any significant coverage that would warrant an article. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 02:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda [32], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or a redirect to Kakao [33], the publisher? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this source I would probably support an article on the author, but it doesn't help much for this specific work. A redirect to a listing at Kakao Webtoon would be appropriate, yes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I saw incorrectly, we do not have a list of Daum/Kakau webtoons. Probably for the best, as the Naver equivalent list is a mess. Deletion still feels like the correct choice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:47, 22 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!} 02:35, 15 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!} 03:23, 22 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) 04:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan, Indiana

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

Searching is unsurprisingly difficult but found nothing to contradict this as a rail point for loading grain. The only thing there now now is a co-op which aerials show has migrated from the north to the south side of the road. By contrast other towns in the area have a street grid, however small. There's none of that here. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are plenty of other sources besides the Internet, such as books and other sources, that may or may not have more info. If we let this article expand a little longer, perhaps more non web sources can be found to expand the page. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. There are no sources beyond those already listed, unless they be produced. We've done a thousand or so of these placenames articles so far, and after sitting around for sixteen years, it has had its chance at "perhaps more sources". This is a classic bad AfD argument. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched through numerous old maps dated between 1878 and 1969 and saw no evidence whatsoever of a settlement at the site. The only thing I could spot on any of them was a structure (perhaps a grain elevator?) marked on this 1969 map near the intersection a couple miles south of Antioch. (The township map doesn't even show that it has a name, though the county-wide locator map identifies the spot as Reagan.) Early property maps show landowners with the surname of Reagan holding much of the farmland around that point, so that presumably is the origin of the locality's name, but I see nothing to show that the spot is/was anything more than a grain storage and loading facility along the railway line. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is plainly false. Reywas92^Talk 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence has been found that this place qualifies for NGEO. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 29 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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 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!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 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!} 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete 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. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
- Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entry is sourced to primary or non-independent or unreliable sources. There is no significant coverage seen from a search for more sources. Best, Reading Beans 00:51, 28 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. Since the deep dive by Aviationwikiflight, consensus appears to be to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyJet Flight 6074

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

~~Non notable incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no major injuries in comparison with 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, its the same case as Air Europa flight 045, and no aircraft damage, so cannot be in Wikipedia since it's not notable. Protoeus (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not exactly a convincing argument since every article has to stand on its own merit. The 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion does not have any injuries, Air Canada Flight 759 doesn’t have any injuries and the list goes on. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No deaths or anything to make it very notable. It should be redirected to List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about the incident per WP:EVENTCRIT, and no sign of changes to procedures or other WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the article on EasyJet Flight 6074 is not important and notable enough. The event's details are not well-documented by reliable sources. Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no signs of notability for this incident nor deaths caused. There are thousands of similar plane incidents like this and not all of them will be given their standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with not a single wounded person, this is very far from having the lasting consequences for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (with the possibility of draftification to improve the state of the article) – A lack of casualties does not necessarily imply non-notability. A major electrical failure leading to a near-miss with the possibility of being intercepted by fighter jets is not run-of-the-mill.
This incident led to multiple recommendations being issued, as well as (an) airworthiness directive(s), several being implemented which does satisfy WP:LASTING. Multiple systems were modified by Airbus as a result of this incident and several changes were also made:

Annuel safety recommendations review annexes^: 3–4
Annual Safety Recommendations review^: 88–91;
G-EZAC Safety Recommendation Document;

Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:

University of York – Failure Logic Modelling: A Pragmatic Approach –31 March 2010–
Vanderbilt University Graduate School – Model-Based Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems –25 October 2011–
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機局の検査制度について (In Japanese) –27 November 2011–
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機に搭載する無線局の検査の在り方に関する検討会報告（案 (In Japanese) –10 August 2012–
Hamburg University of Technology – Eine Methode zur optimalen Redundanzallokation im Vorentwurf fehlertoleranter Flugzeugsysteme (In German) –July 2013–
University of Strathclyde – Impact of key design constraints on fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –10 July 2017–
University of Strathclyde – Establishing viable fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –3 September 2017–

The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:

EASA Community Network | Recurrent defects

The incident was also analysed by the Flight Safety Foundation:

AeroSafety World September 2009^: 16–21

Whilst not having significant coverage in news sources, the incident was widely used as a case study for multiple studies, led to numerous recommendations being issued along with service bulletins, and led to modifications being implemented by Airbus. "Airbus faces demands for A320 series electrical systems improvement following EasyJet report" I don't see how this event would qualify as failing WP:NOTNEWS since primary sources are practically non-existent and that this is not exactly a breaking-news story (I've been able to find a singular news report on this event, The Daily Mail but it's not exactly a source that we would consider reliable). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to find a news report on the incident from the Telegraph, published the day after the release of the final report. [34] Archived version Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another BBC news report on the incident – [35] and a short news report by The Mirror, [36] plus a short mention talking about another incident. [37], and another news report. [38] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator has been blocked for being a disreputable sock. Borgenland (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Aviationwikiflight due to (1) changes in procedures and (2) demonstrated use as a case study. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Rlandmann= Changes in procedures. A serious near miss and major electrical failure. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded by the sources presented by Aviationwikiflight that this event has WP:LASTING impact, and the sources show that this has been covered by multiple independent reliable diverse sources over a decently long period of time. As such, I believe that WP:NEVENT guides us towards keeping this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 29 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 keep‎. Nobody proposes deletion, and nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election

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

This should just be a redirect to Joe Biden with a subsection there. There doesn't need to be a whole article on why he withdrew from the election, as candidates do it all the time (albeit not usually candidates in one of the "big two" parties). A subsection on Biden's main page stating why he dropped out should suffice, unless there is an extremely rare aspect of this that I missed. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're correct but this AfD will never fly. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural SNOW Close An AFD on this article literally was just closed as “no consensus possible”. If you disagree, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW close per DrewieStewie. AKK700 01:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the previous deletion discussion. WP:SNOW for me aswell. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the recent AfD:

[39]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 22 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.