Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 23	July 25 >

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 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!} 03:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Saipan International (badminton)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENT. The winners are already covered in base article Saipan International (badminton).zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, Oceania, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 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!} 11:02, 18 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!} 23:44, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald S. Mangum

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

The main notability claim here that I see is signing the open letter about Biden's health but his role isn't that large in that event WP:ONEEVENT

Everything else is fairly run-of-the-mill

Then of course there is the admitted CoI editing and page creation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of the depth of independent coverage that would be needed for WP:GNG, the scholarly impact or recognition that would be needed for WP:PROF, or the reviews of his books that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR, and my searches failed to turn up anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everything that D1551D3N7 and David Eppstein wrote above. I wish to add two points: 1) I don’t see significant coverage. The sources cited are not as reliable as they used to be. In particular, Who’s Who and the Grey Lady have made editorial decisions that make them less reliable than even four years ago. When a storied book is asking random secondary school teachers to submit autobiographical information, it’s no longer reliable. When every time this past month I heard or read someone cite The Times as a breaking news source, I went instead to Wikipedia for verification. “Oh how the mighty have fallen!” I’ve been waiting for an appropriate AfD to state that truth, and this random debate is the'kairos. 2) If this isn’t a case of WP:BLP1E, I’m not sure what would be. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually discovered this article from searching for pages citing "Who's Who" and similar trivialities like "Kentucky Colonel" that I had noticed on other recent BLP AfDs as it seemed to me these would be a good method of spotting BLP puffery without SIGCOV. I agree that "Who's Who" shouldn't be taken seriously as a source of notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:WHOSWHO. Both the UK and US Who's Whos are generally considered unreliable on Wikipedia and do not contribute to notability. But occasionally notable people do get caught up in this sort of vanity scam so presence of Who's Who among citations is not actually evidence of non-notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 30 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 Pantigo Windmill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquebogue Windmill

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

Non-notable replica structure written in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. Fails the test of multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources. (The Bob Liepa article is the same article published in three different places, the Dempsey article does not mention this windmill at all, and the KDHamptons article is ineligible as tabloid coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage I find is strictly local, from the Suffolk Times about damage to the windmill. There seems to be no coverage outside of hyperlocal items, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) with Pantigo Windmill, of which this is a replica. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would accept a selective merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed the non-encyclopedic promotional tone. However, there is currently only one reliable source; plus the KDHamptons article. The latter is shurely tabloid, but here it's only used to proof that the mill can be rented, so tabloid coverage is sufficient. --Cyfal (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SBST: "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." That means there is insufficient evidence that this windmill passes the WP:GNG. No one's doubting the mill can be rented; we're doubting whether it meets the notability standards of this encyclopedia. I think the "merge" proposal is a good one, finding a home for the encyclopedic content in this article since it doesn't otherwise have standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 14 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!} 20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Aquebogue Windmill is historically important and its meeting Wikipedia's rules for notability, so i guess keep will be the correct approach to this article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small amount of content to Pantigo Windmill as per Djflem, and lose the rest. Not notable in its own right - purely local interest. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 18 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!} 22:54, 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 merge‎ to End-of-train device. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last vehicle board

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, Sri Lanka, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few sites describing why the last car in Indian trains has an X symbol: [1], [2], [3], but that doesn't make it a notable concept, since these are just quirky did-you-know sort of items. Analogy: I can find articles explaining why pencils are often painted yellow: [4], but that doesn't make Color of pencils a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with End-of-train device (as I suggested when deprodding), which is another technology with the same purpose (and likely there are others from different railways around the world). This isn't notable on it's own, but the broader concept is and the target article itself is possibly too narrow on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 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!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information is not with citations but it seem to be true and that can be merged. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into End-of-train device sounds reasonable - that article already describes two approaches. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into End-of-train device. Thank you, Thryduulf, for deprodding and suggesting! gidonb (talk) 23:31, 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 merge‎ to HarmonyOS NEXT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HarmonyOS kernel

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT -- the HarmonyOS Kernel has not received WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Available coverage does not support standalone notability as WP:USERGENERATED (blogs, Hackernoon, Github, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, WP:TRADES, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in coverage of HarmonyOS NEXT. I attempted to redirect to HarmonyOS NEXT, but that was reverted; bringing it here with a recommendation to merge but open to other outcomes as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think HarmonyOS Kernel deserves its own page as it's really important in Huawei's HarmonyOS next. XeVierTech (talk) 16:19, 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!} 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge, presumably to HarmonyOS NEXT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The kernel isn't notable enough for an article Felicia (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Whether it's notable or not, it's pretty much just one rambling paragraph, which would do justice to merge into NEXT. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:19, 31 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 draftify‎. czar 02:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 GT World Challenge Australia

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Or possibly redirect to Australian GT Championship as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you got rid of this one page youd have to get rid of all of these pages too Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons Multiple of those articles lack in real infomation and are full of TBCs. MotoGP and WRC dont even have the race calendar on them, but rather contracted races. There is sources about what tracks are holding what. And the dates. AidenT06 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AidenT06 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep: This championship is a GT championshio just like the British GT Championship and Intercontinental GT Challenge, in which this championship has also valid pages for the 2025 seasons right now. And the race calendar was already published for the next year. So, this page should be kept. And I really agree @AidenT06 for his opinion. There are two important categories already including the next seasons of motorsport championships, Category:2025 in motorsport and Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons. So, if you got rid of this page, why did not you get rid of the pages of all 2025 seasons, also for F1, WEC, and so on? Apeiro94 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Quick search for sources show that we're still in the early announcements stage of planning for the season. Deletion is unwarranted but could do with further development in draft space before being moved to main later this year when there will presumably be some more meaty content to discuss. Neither keep vote makes any substantial argument, both rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF appeals. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 23 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!} 22:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as a reasonable WP:ATD. The previous iterations of the championship seem notable, so there's no indication why this one cannot be when the time comes. But right now, it should be incubated in draftspace until the event is much closer. Bandit Heeler (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per WP:TOOSOON, "[f]or an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources". That is simply not the case and the article is best sent to draft as this will change in the future. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. No evidence that this currently meets the WP:GNG even if it has WP:POTENTIAL to do so in the future. I doubt that this article will meet the WP:GNG at any point before December. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so users can work on the page when more news arise. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON as it stands. Notability not an issue. MSport1005 (talk) 20:00, 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 redirect‎ to Boodee Keerthisena. Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures of Ricky Deen

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boodee_Keerthisena#Filmography: for now (and add the sources there; the article about the director needs a bit of cleanup). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:55, 17 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!} 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of social media links, but hardly any news at all about this film. I don't find any sourcing we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 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!} 22:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Muoto

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

Strictly promotional and non-notable Amigao (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The WSJ source could possibly be OK (I could only read the first paragraph), but there must be multiple notability-contributing sources to establish WP:NBASIC. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions, seems promotional. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Kategoria e Parë players

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

Same type of list as was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign Norwegian First Division players - foreign players in a country's second tier of football, which is not fully professional (not that that matters as much as it used to). Some first-tier leagues that had their lists deleted include this and this.

There are no sources. The list is painfully far from being complete, has problems with maintenance, being outdated and generally abandoned. I believe this falls on the wrong side of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" as prohibited by WP:NOT, as quoted in WP:LISTN. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero references, total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable list. Govvy (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that the phenomenon of foreign players in this particular league has ever been discussed at length in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 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 Withdrawn‎. Moved to draftspace by Drmies. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memaliaj Massacre

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Shooting isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to draft space during this nomination. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:32, 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 speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Frost 09:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arled Hoti

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

Probable autobiography about an unknown footballer. No sources passing WP:SPORTCRIT are present, and I only get 15 google hits for Arled Hoti. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about autobiography is based on the name the creator used to have, in fact until this very day, when the user was renamed. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting WP:SPORTCRIT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient claim to notability. Absence of sources establishing anything close to it. C 679 03:53, 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.

Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - PARAKANYAA has made significant improvements. D1551D3N7 (talk) (non-admin closure)‎

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

Lack of RS and notability.

This is a fantasist order that is trying to piggyback off of the original Knights Templar to make it seem like the organization is well known but upon closer inspection all the sources are unreliable or primary sources - from the org itself. Be aware that the page is primarily about the organization supposedly founded in 1962, a lot of the history prior to that on the page can be disregarded and is better covered on other pages.

Websites related to the group are: smotj.org, osmth.org, osmtj.global

The academia.edu papers are published there by "Daniel J Clausen" and don't seem to be peer reviewed or anything. Daniel J Clausen is himself part of the organization of course. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Royalty and nobility. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. While this needs to be completely rewritten I have run into sigcov of this group several times while looking into related groups - from looking at that, I remember having the feeling this page was highly misleading. Additionally a surface level search pulls up a lot of hits from reliable sources. They might be larpers, but they are notable.

IIRC, they are covered in significant detail in The Order of the Solar Temple: The Temple of Death, with several pages running down their history (they were like three degrees removed from the solar temple so it was context) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if it is kept I will rewrite it. I can't promise soon but I plan to make all the articles related to the Order of the Solar Temple Not Terrible and this was one of the organizations in the Neo-templarism larp mileau at the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite would be appreciated if the page was kept but in it's current state it's entirely self-referential and promotional. By this I mean the content is all about internal schisms and different people having positions in the org and the tenuous links to the orgs before it, theres nothing about the actual activities of the group or why its notable. Perhaps I'm guilty of Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion but I think the current article is entirely biased and a new draft through the page creation process would be preferable. I think a big reason this page slipped through the cracks is it was created in 2005.

The page Joseph Di Mambro says its a white supremacist group which is a far cry from it's own claims about being a charity. Neo-Templarism is also a page that could be improvedParakanyaa D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like pages being deleted if they're notable. I will try to at least get rid of all the self-promo stuff and put something else there in the next few days.

Yeah they are far more unsavory than this page presents. Or at least were.

Neo-Templarism used to be an extremely misleading redirect and now it's a bad start class article. This topic is hard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as according to the comments and evidence by Parakanyaa the subject is notable but needs a drastic rewrite. If that does not happen I suggest it is stubbed to a paragraph or so, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now blown it up and started over with reliable sources. There is a lot more information in these sources (particularly in the NRM encyclopedia) but yknow, time. I still vote keep, at least for now, but in the future I may elect to merge this into neo-Templarism anyway because the whole thing is with these kinds of groups is there's 1000 schisms with near identical names and it may in fact be more confusing to cover this as an article on this specific organization when it schism-ed into 40 other groups. However there is some reliable coverage on its own activities outside of its history so maybe not - but in any case I've addressed the problems that lead to the AfD and the decision to merge can be taken editorially later.

It's still probably very confusing, however the sources explicitly note how confusing the whole thing is, so oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to merge to neo-Templarism at least for now. While they do fulfill the GNG, most of what I can find on them is neo-Templarism generally and there are so many schisms and whatnot that they're better covered as part of the group of organizations anyway. There is a non-zero chance that it could be split out again in the future but no guarantee. This is better in the short term IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:59, 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. ✗plicit 20:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Boyce

(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. All I came across was this blog post and a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:04, 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 redirect‎ to List of United States men's international soccer players. (non-admin closure) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Margenson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Could be redirected to List of United States men's international soccer players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United States of America, and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as ATD. Giant Snowman 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players, I couldn't find in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 20:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Jubilee Medal 2022

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

Non notable award without reliable sources. Page was started by a user with CoI issues elsewhere. The other major editor is blocked for wiki abuse D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A perfect example of a NN article with COI issues. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:34, 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!} 16:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun H. Shami

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

Is this person notable? Google News yields no hits, and a lot of the references here are completely inappropriate, e.g. his employer's own website, LinkedIn profile, and Google Scholar profile. Uhooep (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His Google Scholar profile is as close to empty as they come [5]. I found nothing about his works in Google Scholar, Google News, and JSTOR. No evidence of notability as a scholar, activist, or filmmaker. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello. Thank you for your comment, Uhooep. Based on Wikipedia:Notability (people), academics are considered notable. In News: he is a professor of mass communication and media, as verified by a reference from QA Newspaper^[1] based in London. Additionally, he is currently a scholar and professor holds a PhD in film and media, as evidenced by sources such: a public UK University website^[2] and ALJAZeeraTV Forum^[3]. According to Raseef22^[4], a liberal media website based in Lebanon, he is a writer specializing in the field of secularism and minorities. His articles on Raseef22 address topics in the freedom of journalism and academia. Academic, scholar and notable - Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazen1980 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC) — Mazen1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is flat-out false that all academics are considered notable. We have specific criteria in WP:PROF according to which some academics are notable but most are not. None of the things you list meet those criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Alquds, Newspaper. https://www.alquds.co.uk/هذه-خصوصيتي-متضامن-مع-د-رولا-قوّاس/. Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Norwich, UEA. UEA https://www.uea.ac.uk/search/people/?query="film television and media". Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Aljazeera, SJForum. https://sjforum.aljazeera.net/#speakers. Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ News, Raseef22. https://raseef22.net/author/169749-خلدون-شامي. Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Delete Does not appear notable by the standard for academics or that for filmmakers. XOR'easter (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article may require some improvement /missing personal information/ but it meets Wiki's standards -- Google identifies the individual as a public figure - https://g.co/kgs/rmPh8Ed. and It yields results in one more language as well -- he is notable - Keep. Sarah @SarahFossil SarahFossil (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC) — SarahFossil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, those are not our standards. And no, the name of this website is not "Wiki". XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2022 PhD. WP:NCREATIVE for the films is somewhat plausible, but this would require reviews of the work in reliable sources, which are not apparent. Watchlisting in case reviews are found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see that he meets the notability criteria for academics or filmmakers.--فيصل (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:03, 31 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!} 16:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Yagutilov

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a filmmaker and photographer, and cannot find reliable sources to add. I thought it possible the Gold Remi award from the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival might make him notable, but this is not the highest award they give and I cannot find verification of the 2004 award winners. I do not think he is notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NFILMMAKER. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Photography, and Russia. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In a BEFORE search, I am finding precisely nothing on this photographer/filmmaker other than his own user-submitted content, social media, YouTube uploads and the like. Zero significant coverage. Does not meet WP criteria for GNG, or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding anything online to show this person is notable. The list of awards is unsourced and I am not finding any evidence of the claims made in the table in that section. The random list of items under the table makes no sense. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source in the article, and that is self-published social media. I've searched for others but the only thing I've been able to find is a few random photo credits. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another page that has zero reliable sources, and the external links include an outdated MySpace page. This use of a single recent source, as I’ve mentioned at AfDs many times, amounts to WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 30 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 Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath. Clear consensus not to leave the page in place, and no valid opposition to turning into a redirect for what may be a popular search term. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joever

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

The article ~~only contains one reliable secondary source~~ [Ammendment: The Forbes source was written by a contributor] contains no reliable secondary sources that talk about the word "joever". The rest are sources that use the word in their headlines. This fails the general notability criteria because the topic does not have 1) signifcant coverage in 2) secondary sources. The only other coverage I could find in reliable sources is trivial mentions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary. All coverage is trivial, and we’re not off to a good start when the second paragraph is WP:FORBESCON.

-1ctinus📝🗨 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that the Forbes article was unreliable; I will ammend my opening statement. That brings the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources down to zero. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:45, 24 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. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a notable neologism/meme. Unclear if anything would need to be merged to paragraph at Withdrawal_of_Joe_Biden_from_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election#Debate_aftermath. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. As it stands, the cultural significance of the meme is too small and is better left as a minor cultural note on Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, and Let's Go Brandon or Sleepy Joe (nickname). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wikt:Joever, or alternatively to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Nearly no secondary coverage meeting WP:NEO. The "Background" section isn't about the term, and the sources in the "Growth and use in media" section are trivial mentions, which basically use the word without much (or any) discussion of it. The one in-depth source is from WP:FORBESCON. hinnk (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary: No evidence reliable secondary WP:SIGCOV for this portmanteau to warrant it's own article. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath since there's already existing content written about the meme in that section. Some1 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath and merge a few sentences of this article to a new subsection there. The phrase itself has seen a fair amount of use both on social media and in news headlines, but it's fairly self-explanatory and there hasn't been a lot of discussion of it. Here's what I found in mostly-reliable sources.

NYTimes: "Tina Wargo, 31, learned of the shake-up from a text inviting her to a party. “It’s Joever,” read the event name, said Ms. Wargo, who lives in Brooklyn and works for a theater ticketing company. She initially thought it was a joke, but was surprised to learn otherwise after seeing posts from Taylor Swift-related accounts on X using the same pun."
Teen Vogue uses the phrase and embeds tweets with the meme
CNET in a human-written article discusses usage of the term
Austin American-Statesman mentions the phrase and embeds a tweet with it. Djkauffman (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for getting these. I honestly feel like if we give it a year, a few communications scholars will have written articles about it and then it'll be worthy of a C-Class article. Ornov Ganguly TALK 01:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. This probably isn't a subject deserving of an article on its own, but the phrase is mentioned in the withdrawal article as an element of the movement to get Biden to drop out. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content there might be original research. While this is related to the destination of a potential redirect location, I'd rather not crowd the discussion here, so I've made a comment on that article's talk page. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Generation Z slang since it's a meme phrase that is used by gen z people GodzillamanRor (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable because there is coverage in 3 reliable secondary sources after searching Google News:

142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that sources also have to be significant coverage, not just a passing use of it... Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered acceptable WP:SIGCOV of this meme? A "book-length history" is not expected to exist. I don't think my sources look like "newspaper article about Bill Clinton, ... part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice ... a trivial mention of that band" because they focus on the meme topic specifically. I also added 7 more sources (mostly reliable but some unlisted at RSP but found in Special:LinkSearch) with coverage ranging from the overall meme to several individual aspects of the meme. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A neologism/meme that had a half-life of maybe a week. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to support WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNEO, or WP:NTEMP claims that it has a half-life of maybe a week when the meme is from 2023, and therefore it clearly isn't "neo" and has been ongoing for more than 1 year. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed all the OR and trivial uses. The result is four remaining paragraphs of sources specifically mentioning and analyzing the meme. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't belong on Wikipedia for a number reasons already written. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, nor a dictionary. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath, as it's mentioned in numerous sources as a meme related to the situation, but it doesn't have notability for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. I added the word "Joever" to the article with an adequately-sourced paragraph of information. That's all the word needs. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simply wholly unsuitable content for an encyclopaedia. Really don't have much more to add. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's more self-explanatory than phrases like You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?, which is why there aren't many secondary sources explaining it (akin to how there aren't many articles explaining what a jam sandwich is); they rather just use and discuss the term without explicit explanation. However, it's kind of unclear at the moment if it fulfils WP:NSUSTAINED. Oeoi (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath As the author who has contributed the most to the article, I would recommend that the majority of the information I added to this article be consolidated to the aforementioned page. I will add it myself now!BakedintheHole (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as notable for Joe and Biden. It's over Joe = Joever. It's so clever. PuppyMonkey (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not independently notable; its coverage is largely dictated by Biden's withdrawal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect it was funny seeing this get an article but I really don't think it should be kept. It is a random meme that has never had the spotlight except for a few days, and is assured to not be coming back to it after Biden's withdrawal. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not KnowYourMeme.com J6he (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, merge, partially notable but I don't think this warrants it's own article. "Joever" has its place on Wikipedia as a section in the Biden withdrawal page. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this discussion was started the number of reliable secondary coverage has increased, though the article is still badly written. (lead mentions a resurgence, then talks about the withdrawal and debate as background, then mentions the meme existed in 2023. Looking at Google Trends, it began in late 2022, and reached a temporary peak in Mid 2023 before the current peak. It is in no way related to his debate and withdrawal but a more general pessimistic outlook regarding his presidency and health. It might even have started with the 2022 midterms, which some expected to be a red wave.) Plenty of fads surrounding US Presidents have dedicated articles and I see no reason which this one in particular should not exist. — jonas (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect probably not enough for a full encyclopedia article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the withdrawal article, this isn't enough to support its own article and can perfectly fit in a small section over there. Yeoutie (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Additionally, the coverage and usage that we do have doesn't appear to be sustained or beyond when he pulled out from the election. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 31 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!} 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Towfigh

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

Highly promotional article which doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Medicine, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional. Not notable – fails WP:NPROF. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made appropriate changes and removed the promotional content. Please re-evaluate. Umarfb (talk) 11:14, 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) 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augustan Society

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

I can find no evidence that this 'society' (an incorporated company) meets Wikipedia notability criteria. The article is pure advertising. According to its own website [6], it offers 'services' such as 'Recognition of Noble Titles', 'Recognition of membership in Orders of Chivalry' etc, but fails to demonstrate that such 'recognition' has any value whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's title weirdo stuff and it's being used to prop up similar orgs that should be deleted for lacking notability and credibility like the American_Heraldry_Society(old successful AfD), Royal Order of the Engabu, Royal Order of the Omujwaara Kondo and Patriarchal Order of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an internet based business for fantasists who buy dubious honours that lacks both notability and credibility. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but feel the need to stress that the page has zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many self-sourced, self-important nobilitycruft articles with no underlying notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:12, 31 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 Infinity on High. czar 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)

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

The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[7][8] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG - The article is comprehensive and there is commentary about the song in multiple reliable sources. Slant Magazine, Northern Valley Suburbanite, Alternative Press, Guitar.com. Additionally the song leads with an introduction from Jay Z which garnered much press like in the Los Angeles Times and other major media outlets.Note, as the article's main author I was not notified of this AfD. Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I would have said the same. The article itself is not the issue, but the sources are. They are all about the album, so the critics naturally write about the songs featured in the album from that perspective. For example, "I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers" is also mentioned by two of the sources you included and some sources included at Infinity on High, but that doesn't mean we should have an article for it. This was practically the conclusion reached at previous AFD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Hands. A good example of how this is reversed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song), a song that was marignally notable when it was released, but that gained independent notability after an external event created that notability; that is, being used in a TV series and secondary sources discussing it independently from the album. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (into Infinity on High) - it has good info, but I agree with the nom. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, they are not a reason to keep the page alone. Some sources are trivial and none of the sources present is about the song alone; they are about the album, regardless on how you'd like to word it. As I said before, just because the sources at Infinity on High#References mention songs like Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?, I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers, or Bang the Doldrums, we have to create their articles based on album reviews that trivially reviewed them from the album's perspective, like it occured with Thriller (Fall Out Boy song).

On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.

As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we can see more participation to come to a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Infinity on High: love the band and the song, but think per WP:NOPAGE the worthwhile content is better saved for the album page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Infinity on High. Talking about editors' statistical contributions rarely impresses a closer, especially when it fails to engage with the nominator's primary argument: all coverage presented or applied seems in connection to the album, not to the song by itself. I made a reasonable BEFORE, and I saw nothing where the song was the sole focus of the piece. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 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 no consensus‎. Currently, those arguing keep point to extensive coverage of the topic in various sources. Those arguing to delete or redirect the article criticize the reliability and independence of some of these sources. It does not seem that there is clear consensus right now as to whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines. There is a solid push to redirect and/or merge the article, but again there does not seem to be a clear consensus to do so. I am skeptical that time will result in more clarity, so I am closing this discussion for now. Given the article's deletion and recreation history, I will not be surprised to see a fourth AfD in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources added to the article since the last AFD, ~~but failing that merge to Centaurs in popular culture~~. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centaurs in popular culture - The non-primary sourced material is extremely minimal, being largely either the same very obvious "Centaurs are based on mythological Centaurs" statement that was deemed insufficient in the last AFD, or a couple of sentences in what are essentially game guides. Some are literally just one-sentence mentions stating that "Centaurs are half-horse", making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing to indicate that the D&D specific version of centaurs either pass the WP:GNG, nor are any more notable than any of the other entries in the Centaurs in popular culture list that would justify making the existing entry any longer. Rorshacma (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Rorshacma; once the excessive details from D&D handbooks is discounted, there is not enough coverage for a separate article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accepts (and obviously many do not) that the topic is 'centaur', then the D&D sources are themselves non-trivial reliable sources independent of 'centaur' as a topic. Now, that may take a bit to wrap one's mind around, but centaur is a public domain concept, used in plenty of contemporary fiction and entertainment media. Why is what Gary Gygax & co. wrote problematic, but what Rick Riordan wrote acceptable? It is nothing more than an artifact of how the topic of 'centaur' is split up into multiple articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on centaurs in Rick Riordan's books, I would presumably vote to redirect that as well. I don't see how "D&D didn't invent centaurs" is supposed to prove "D&D handbooks are independent coverage of the topic of centaurs in D&D". Walsh90210 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough non-handbook (and non-WotC) sources have been presented that I'm striking my redirect vote. Some merge might still be reasonable; that could be proposed later. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the small coverage in book sources more extensive sources in various web article like this one, which do provide commentary on their relevance. Failing that, merge to Centaurs in popular culture - there is new content now not present at the target, and I plan to add some more. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Centaurs in popular culture (or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons), or merge as compromise. Several sources do not meet our WP:RS standards, and in total they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the editors who are striving for WP:CONSENSUS by suggesting more than one !vote preference. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is present, merging is impossible at this point due to the size of the article. Agree with @Jclemens basing on this essay. Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [9] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the basic description of Valnet sources in the section (The paragraph above the individual cells). There's case by case uses per each source's use clause (Namely TheGamer being considered reliable and stuff like Android Police and MakeUseOf being considered generally unreliable in all use cases) but most sources that fall into the marginally reliable category tend to fall under the umbrella description I quoted above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sources are inadequate and do not meet standards of WP:RS or offer significant reliable prose that can be written. Jontesta (talk) 16:33, 31 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. Consensus judged delete per strength of argument (Deeper analysis of sources reveal lack of independence) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Mannekkara

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO - sourced to PR/puff pieces.
Earlier draft: Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor who wrote this article made a Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara on 08:13, 22 June 2024 and kept it and later made a new article with a slight change in the title, which is a wrong trend and does not prove WP:NBIO. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the editor who made this page did a mistake by creating a draft and then again creating it into the main space, maybe he is a newbie that's why....but if we look at the person's page, he was awarded the community Leader Award from the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation which is a state award from the person's home state which is in Kerala and the Fulbright Foundation’s Global Changemaker Award in 2023 which is a International award given by the US Government which i believe at least qualify the award category of the people's notability guidelines according to the guidelines written in Wikipedia. This guy also has a significant coverage in The Times of India, Economics Times , Ahmedabad Mirror which i believe is considered reliable in Wikipedia. So we have 2 of the 3 basic criteria except the national dictionary thing ....also While reading the content of these articles i don't see any kind of sponsored post written or a disclaimer in the news coverage these are just my analysis. SATavr (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be ignorance / new editor who wrote the draft and then made a new page, but destroyed the first edits in the first draft and deleted it in a completely unrecognizable form, added another person to it and added it to his date of birth and created a misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge?? Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara Difference between revisions [10], Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara 2nd Difference between revisions[11] Spworld2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. It was a stupid mistake done by this new editor and i think he lacks the patience for it and just wanted to go directly with a shortcut way for publication. Thats why he change the draft content to a different person and he thought we would'nt know lol..... I believe he has learned a lesson not to do it again and i hope he has got to know that things doesnt workout like this. SATavr (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A before search comes up with many sources. (e.g. [1] [2]. Numerous articles featuring the names appear, the most of them in Hindi and English. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR/churnalism doesn’t count. Both articles are just advertorials for his car company.-KH-1 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles discuss his side automobile firm, yet his Wikipedia biography hardly ever mentions this information. The autogenerated nature of these stories is not disclaimed, as is typically the case. The name of the publisher, Sunil Chaurasia, is also mentioned in The Economic Times. His social work is the subject of major pieces that don't appear to be PR or churnalism. They include original research, such as his participation in and thorough coverage of the Sankesh Foundation and the Smiles Foundation. - [3] which is covered in the Ahmedabad Mirror. Another example is his relationship with Shyalash C, his mentor, which isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page but is confirmed as original research in Punjab Kesari - [4]. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to hear from some more experienced editors about whether sourcing is sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is currently serving as a Global Peace Ambassador under UN75. He has been awarded the Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from Kerala. He meets the basic criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. With regards to his sources the news articles on his social work looks fine but the same cannot be said for some of his articles written about his second-hand car business found in google but considering that his Wikipedia page does not cover his car business, overall, it looks fine to me. Master rollo (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seriously asking for experienced editors who frequent AFD discussions to review this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only get two pages of Gnews results, most are by "staff" or puff pieces/advertorials. The Fullbright sounds promising, but without sourcing we can't confirm, nor do we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find was this [12]; GTranslate seems to say it's a staff piece, so likely about as unreliable as the rest of what's already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest searching by his full name, Muhammad Faris Mannekkara, to find additional articles about him. Also, please check the sources listed on his Wikipedia page. it maybe possible that his articles are ranked poorly in google search engine. that's why less result are been shown but if you try his full name which act like a keyword you will find the news article. Regarding his Fulbright award, it is published in this source as well. [5].

When i am doing the Google Translate for this article - [3] it is referring the person as "she" instead of "He" and is not translating the words in a properly manner. Also the article mentions the author's name as well - Gaurav Tiwari which means it contradict the claim that it was written by multiple staff. Also there aren't any disclaimer that says this story is autogenerated. Blackwatch007 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Faris Mannekkara is currently serving as a Peace Ambassador for the United Nations. His notable achievements include receiving the prestigious Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from the Kerala government. He meets the criteria for WP BIO due to his significant contributions and recognition in his field. There are numerous secondary sources available on Google that document his extensive career in social service, highlighting his impact and dedication. Angiemcc2023 (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason demonstrated why this person is any more notable than other successful young social worker and businessman in Kerala. Wikipedia is neither a business card nor a linkedin page. I'd be happy to shown I'm wrong, but it looks like there are tens of thousands of "Global Peace Ambassadors." Fails ANYBIO and SIGCOV. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing beyond PR churnalism, does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 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!} 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

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

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [13][14], a one-paragraph entry at [15] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [16][17] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [18], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [19], [20] and this which I think is also a RS [21]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately weak delete. The DigitalCameraWorld source above is the only one that qualifies for a full unit of SIGCOV, while the rest don't quite meet the mark, even when combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - I don't think his channel has reached notability yet, no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draft - in addition to the sources provided by Oaktree b, I was able to find a mention in Consumer Reports [22] - but it is the exact type of "passing coverage" that does not impart notability. From what I can see the only source that imparts any notability is the Digital Camera World article, which covers a video by Alec in depth (rather than just mentioning it in passing - as the Verge, Consumer Reports, etc do). I would be interested in seeing the borderline The Physics Teacher coverage (just for curiosity) but I trust sdkb that it is borderline (the section of the journal that it's in - Websights - confirms that it's likely borderline). I have no opposition to moving to draft space or userspace if someone wants to "take care of it" for the chance further coverage is either found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:41, 30 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. There is clear consensus that the sources provided do not have substantive coverage of the subject of this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mateer (musician)

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

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

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

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

Almost no independent or reliable sourcing. Sourcing that is independent and reliable does not provide WP:SIGCOV, if it mentions the article subject at all which many of the sources in the article do not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Mateer for a previous discussion which ended in the author (the same as for the current article) requested deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This nomination is not even worth exerting energy on. There are articles/sources from Forbes, CNN, Seventeen Magazine, Teen Vogue, New York Daily News, BBC Three, ABC, NBC & Los Angeles Times. Many of these articles are exclusively written about the subject with zero involvement from the subject. There is also a German academic thesis cited — amongst other things — that speaks on the significance of the subject. Some of these articles from top news and media outlets on the globe even state having reached out to the subject for comment but received no reply. Excruciatingly blatant examples of independent, reliable and significant coverage.

WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and then some with this article & it’s sourcing.

🂡🂡9t5 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of those examples here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish:

Forbes, Forbes again, CBS, CNN, Seventeen Magazine, Teen Vogue, New York Daily News, Philly Voice, BBC3, ABC, The Weather Channel & Los Angeles Times, Social Media Activism in the Obama Era - Thesis (p. 171-173 — labeled on the document as p. 166-168)

Not to be argumentative, but these are all available directly in the reference section of the article.

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sigcov there. A paragraph about social media response to the assault in a non-peer reviewed paper, a few video clips about a storm, and some routine coverage of a single event does not establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider significant coverage if not an assault drawing attention from the national media to the lack of hate crime protections for LGBT people in Pennsylvania? As for the storm, there I suggest watching the documentaries referenced, all of which feature the subject. I am almost certain at one point there was also a reference to the inclusion of the subject in a recap of the year 2012 that was televised in the program "20/20".. I’ll have to look. You are asserting your personal opinion by regarding these things as insignificant, but given one of these events you suggest is insignificant was apparently significant enough for a German scholar to include it in her PhD thesis, and considering the article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies — perhaps it’s just significant events within the LGBT community that you find insignificant? I ask you kindly to take a look at this. Can you further elaborate on why you assert its insignificance, and furthermore can you reference sections of Wikipedia’s guidelines that back your stance? I look forward to your reply.

The Fordham Ram (US)

"Updating Gay Hate Crime Legislation"

January 18, 2021 · by: Jaclyn Weiner

MediaUpdate.co.za (ZA)

"Superstorm New York: What Really Happened"

November 14, 2012

PRNewswire (US)

"National Geographic Channel To Air First In-Depth Cable Documentary On Wrath And Destruction Of Hurricane Sandy In Superstorm 2012"

November 12, 2012

Stereo Stickman (US)

"John Mateer's 'New York Sound'"

January 16, 2024 · by: Rebecca Cullen

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (US)

"John Mateer: Hate crimes laws protect people like me - and you"

May 28, 2023 · by: John Mateer

Philly Voice (US)

"Man says he was beaten by PSU fraternity member because he's gay"

November 15, 2019 · by: Daniel Craig

Opposing Views (US)

"'Don't Let A Frat Guy Know That You're Gay': Teen Allegedly Beaten Up At Penn State"

March 8, 2018 · by: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

StateCollege.com (US)

"Penn State Student Charged in Alleged Anti-Gay Assault"

October 15, 2015 · by: Zach Berger

Onward State (US)

"Penn State Altoona Student Charged Following Alleged Homophobic Assault"

October 15, 2015 · by: Megan Fleming

The Underground (US)

"Mateer's Assault and Homophobia at Penn State"

October 12, 2015 · by: Adam Tidball

Total Frat Move (US)

"Viral Tweet Accuses PSU Fraternity Member Of Beating Guy Up For Being Gay, Police Find Suspect Isn't Actually In Fraternity"

October 8, 2015 · by: Harrison Lee

Seventeen (US)

"Gay Teen Brutally Attacked Outside a Penn State Frat House"

October 8, 2015 · by: Elizabeth Denton

COED (US)

"Teen Claims PSU Student Assaulted Him For Being Gay"

October 7, 2015 · by: Alexa Lyons

Logo TV (US)

"GAY TEEN VICIOUSLY BEATEN AT PENN STATE AFTER REVEALING HE IS GAY"

October 7, 2015 · by: Matthew Tharrett

Gay Star News (US)

"Gay college student visiting Penn State comes out outside fraternity house, gets beaten"

October 7, 2015

Teen Vogue (US)

"This Teen Was Beaten Outside a Penn State Frat House After Revealing That He's Gay"

October 7, 2015 · by: Emma Sarran Webster

Edge Media Network (US)

"NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

October 6, 2015

Pink News (GB)

"Police investigate alleged assault on college teen by 'frat member'"

October 6, 2015 · by: JOSEPH MCCORMICK

Edge (US)

"NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

October 6, 2015

Towleroad (US)

"Police Investigating Alleged Anti-Gay Assault of Man at Penn State University"

October 6, 2015 · by: Ande Towle

Metro (US)

"Man claims he was gay bashed by Penn State frat guy"

October 6, 2015 · by: Matthew Lee

NY Daily News (US)

"Long Island teen claims Penn State fraternity member beat him for being gay: 'Don't let a frat guy know that you're gay'"

October 6, 2015 · by: Melissa Chan

Fox 5 New York (US)

"Police investigate possible anti-gay beating"

October 5, 2015

The Tab (US)

"Gay man allegedly beaten in North Burrowes assault"

October 5, 2015

Inside Edition (US)

"Police Investigate After Teen Says He Was Assaulted at Penn State University For Being Gay"
October 4, 2015 · by: IE Staff

Channel Guide Magazine (US)

"Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of 'Bouffants and Bingo'"

June 16, 2013 · by: Barb Oates

CBS 6 (US)

"Trees fall in NY neighborhood as Sandy comes ashore"

November 2, 2012 · by: Sandi Cauley

Forbes (US)

"Sandy Through The Eyes of YouTube and a Drone: Falling Trees, Fires and Flooding"

November 2, 2012 · by: Kashmir Hill

Pirman (ES)

"'Esto es el 'Apocalipsis'. Sandy videos: Caída de árboles. Fuego. Olas gigantes."

October 31, 2012

Aristegui Noticias (MX)

"'Frankenstorm' se llevó hasta los árboles en EU"

October 31, 2012

CNET (US)

"Sandy video: Falling trees. Fire. 'Apocalypse'"

October 31, 2012 · by: Chris Matyszczyk

Mashable (US)

"'This Is the Apocalypse' Video Shows Sandy Destruction"

October 30, 2012 · by: Stephanie Haberman

Klix (BA)

"Pogledajte s kakvom lakocom uragan Sandy cupa drvece"

October 30, 2012

BostInno (US)

"'Hurricane Sandy 3 Trees Fall and Fire' Becomes Next Double Rainbow Guy"

October 30, 2012 · by: Sam Dwyer

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, not to be argumentative but your nomination statement states:

Almost no independent or reliable sourcing.

I genuinely respect this project and certainly your role as an admin, but I am starting to become disheartened by certain editors who use privileges to take Wikipedia Policy & Guidelines and distort them in any way they need to in order to fit their argument.

A community leader should be more than willing to admit oversight or accept that while they hold a high seat, it’s meant to be used to enforce the policy that already exists as is not redefine it without consensus. I am respectfully concluding my involvement in this discussion as I would like to hear the opinions of our peers, but I wish you all the best and it was nice meeting you. 9t5 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has significant coverage or anything that exceeds WP:ROUTINE or WP:BLP1E. You even included a source that the subject wrote. Many of these don't mention the article subject, e.g. Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of 'Bouffants and Bingo' Dumping lists of sources with no explanation of why or how they help establish notability isn't sufficient. Also, knock off the perhaps it’s just significant events within the LGBT community that you find insignificant? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience sake, would you please provide links to these? I am attempting to go through them one by one, but it takes considerable time without links provided. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk - it was a plaintext list I found online. Again, really trying to not be argumentative here, but why go through all of them? Every single source cited doesn’t need to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV .. so I’m confused why this has turned into a mission of making sure every single last source is up to par with WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. You could save yourself a whole lot of time if you just sought out three and then ran those through the test. Is it independent of the subject? Is it reliable? Is it more than a trivial mention? Well. Then it satisfies WP:SIGCOV (what the nomination is claiming there are no sources that do) and if you can find at least three that pass this test, then we have satisfied WP:GNG. Also note that notability is not a temporary state as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This subject has long been established at notable in more than just one area. We actually had a while discussion two years ago on what to even put as the identifier for the article since there is a poet with the same name. I had initially suggested using the subjects middle name but it landed on “(musician)”.. Please don’t stress yourself out trying to have every single source be up to the standards of WP:GNG.. just three. Do the test. If anyone needs, I can do it for you and chart out the requirements satisfied by this article. I can also explain why the nominator thinking a topic or news report is important is not a requirement for WP:SIGCOV like they seem to think. I can also explain why the assertion that something must be personally a topic the nominator finds important in order for it to be included in the encyclopedia despite satisfying WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG is a form of censorship and I can also explain that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I may only have 4,000 edits, but that’s 4,000 edit with 87% remaining live. I am far from a disruptive or unintelligent editor, and I am allowed to find the disregard of Wikipedia policy and guidelines by a sitting admin to be offensive. I am also allowed to say that out loud. I am not here to kiss their ass, I am here to contribute to a project I am passionate about.

Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the first three, for example, you've got an opinion piece] in a student paper, an extremely passing mention that name drops Mateer once, and a press release distributed by PR Newswire. The lack of links is making it a bit hard to parse through here and actually get to the root truth.

Alternatively, since you are already deeply familiar with the sourcing, would you be willing to the WP:THREE sources that you believe indicate that this individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ScottishFinnishRadish Apologies, I did not comment on your mention of the first nomination discussion. That discussion took place before I developed the article and I requested speedy delete as the author to provide me time to develop the article. This was before I knew I could vote to draftify, which other contributors to the discussion were suggesting — including Liz, who personally reached out telling me she didn’t want me to give up on the article.

I am unsure why you believe that previous removal of an article at the authors request means that subsequent versions of the article are forevermore subject to deletion, even following development and appropriate sourcing.

I am interested to see how this discussion goes, but I stand behind this nomination being a waste of everyone’s time.

🂡🂡9t5 20:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your signature smaller. Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 9t5's list of sources above. I believe notability is reached. JoeJShmo^💌 09:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources do you believe provides significant coverage of the article subject? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 9t5 (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone through all the 69 sources in the current version of the article and there is no significant biographical coverage in independent reliable sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG (the closest, though not close, are the subject's appearance on ABC's Katie and a psychic show). The subject doesn't come close to qualifying as a notable musician, filmmaker or entrepreneur either despite the article's title or lede sentence. The best claim to notability is as a victim of an assault; (see this or sources attached to content (properly) removed in this edit due to BLP concerns) but IMO the subject would still fail as per WP:BIO1E and would, in any case, require a complete rewrite of the article as that about a crime rather than a pretend-biography.

(TL;DR) The article as it stands is all padding based on trivial mentions, self-published media and unreliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to find any RS sources with sigcov - but have failed - beyond the single event. This, which is referenced above for example, started to look promising, but then it references the wikipedia article and is actually a site offering paid-for articles. Even the one critic review of "Metronome" referenced by IMDb is in fact a link back to a Wikipedia upload. I'd be happy to be pinged to change my !vote, but I don't see presently how the subject meets any of the WP notability criteria. ResonantDis_tortion 07:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ResonantDistortion I remember this! I did that. It is a ZINE. There is no online copy of it but it is handed out locally so I was unsure how to document it correctly. That was back when I just started editing in October-ish 2022 I think. I apologize. Nobody is watching any of the documentaries apparently —- the BBC3 one being one that goes into great depth on the video recorded during sandy. There is also a Weather Channel special that was entirely about the video. You need to just seek some of these out as they are not readily available for free. If I was given time, I could find alternative ways to perhaps transcribe these documentaries for citation. But again, this was a targeted nomination by someone who didn’t like that I proposed a policy against targeted nominations. At the base line, I would like to also consider the fact that is absolutely uncalled for behavior by an admin. Considering they are supposed to foster a productive space not aim to harass new editors. 9t5 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at the sources and can't see any significant coverage. A Hurricane Sandy video and an assault are not enough to base an article on unless the sources discuss the subject in depth, and I'm not seeing it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pawnkingthree would you openly state that your reasoning is, in fact, in opposition to the language at WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV? Because you have one person claiming this is a one event article, then another claiming that separate events aren’t important enough despite non-trivial mention in reliable independent sources. Do you see how many guidelines and policies I am referencing in this discussion? I would like the same in return. Nobody is giving me any guideline or policy that backs their decision. Just evasion of the ones that are currently on the books. It’s sad. It’s a problem. And it will be addressed beyond this AfD.

Regards. 9t5 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for further information, ScottishFinnishRadish was involved in a dispute regarding my policy proposal and while discussing whether or not the policy was actually voted on correctly or not and whether it should be tagged with {{failed policy}}, tagged it as such anyway before the talk page discussion even concluded. The editor then went and wrote on my talk page a frustrated and rudely written demand for me to change my signature because of the colors. I politely agreed. Following the demand for that, and tagging the policy (a policy which specifically was aimed at preventing targeted nominations and championed WP:WITCHHUNT) according to timestamps - @ScottishFinnishRadish spent 30-40 minutes going through my contribution history to find something to nominate and this is the best they could find. It’s still shaky, and I am saying right now that the fact I wasn’t given the chance to improve the article before a nom was thrown my way is uncivil, rude and exactly why this website has a retention problem. ScottishFinnishRadish thinks they are a solver of the retention problem when indeed they are the retention problem. This is a targeted nomination and I am asking for editors to think about what they are voting before they do, as this discussion will be permanently available and referenced again.

9t5 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "This is a targeted nomination and I am asking for editors to think about what they are voting before they do, as this discussion will be permanently available and referenced again" is incredibly ill-advised. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is deleted, could somebody ping me or take care of this file? The attached non-free file File:Blue Eyes (2024).mp3 is rather dubiously claimed as both CC-BY-SA 4 (based on a user called gigem61477 uploading is as such to the Internet Archive) and fair use. (Though, with no templates and not really any proper rational). I've also nominated File:Detective Sgt John Mateer at Ground Zero NYC in Sept 2001.jpg for deletion over on commons as a Flickrwashed copyvio. (Uploader assumed good faith on a dubious license) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by Abecedare and ResonantDistortion, per WP:NOTPROMO, and because the bio has been written almost exclusively by single-purpose accounts: Coolasacucumba, SigmaEmpath, and Wittyway, which is a dead giveaway of WP:PAID. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It seems like there are two potentially notable things about Mateer: his coverage of Hurricane Sandy and the hate crime that he was a victim of. His coverage of Hurricane Sandy was covered repeatedly. However, that is 1 event. I'm not sure its significant coverage but I think the point could be argued, particularly with the O6 news article and the LA times article. The hate crime was also mentioned above, however it is not anywhere in the article. In terms of whether that could be used for notability if it were in the article, see WP:VICTIM. He is not someone who "had a large role within a well-documented historic event." Thus, I don't think it makes sense to claim notability based on that--no matter how well covered the event was. So we're left with just the hurricane. And although there's some coverage of that, if we look at WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, I don't think that "any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage"; he is only covered "in connection with an event or organization" (from WP:PSEUDO). The event in this case is Hurricane Sandy. There might be enough coverage to write something about amateur photography and Hurricane Sandy and mention Mateer, but ultimately I don't think there's enough for his own article. I hope this reasoning was clear. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SFR, plenty of mentions have been trundled out by those advocating keep but my view is none of them meet our standard for significant coverage, per Abecedare. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 30 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. The lone keep did not provide an argument to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican presidential firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publication dedicated to discussing Mexican presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Mexico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I appear to be this article's only major editor aside from its creator, who doesn’t appear to have edited since 2022. To give this article a chance, I shall do a search myself, to see if sufficient sourcing exists. I doubt it, though. When I am done, I shall either present my case with sources or change to delete. ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:LISTN, this subject does not have enough reliable, independent coverage to warrant an article, thereby leaving the current one in violation of WP:SYNTH. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no demonstrated claim to notability, and with the inclusion criteria being fuzzy it isn't clear that it could ever be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:03, 31 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 Robert Aiello#Bibliography. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel)

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

I could not find a single review for this book, failing WP:NBOOK -1ctinus📝🗨 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Update: after the authors page was created, i’m fine with a redirect.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Aiello#Bibliography (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a new article about Robert Aiello. This title can now redirect there. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Aiello#Bibliography per above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per above. Found nothing on ProQuest either. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:14, 30 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× ☎ 13:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obeng II

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

The page is self-promotional, made by individuals with a CoI. They have a website at royalhousemim.org for selling titles and Order memberships and whatnot but the house and orders are only of interest to fantasists.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No significant coverage to prove notability. The sources cited on the current article are either self-published, or citations that contain invalid links: at least two were for fundraisers, one was of a book totally unrelated to the article, one says Arlington Herald on the title, but is a self-published WordPress site, among other WordPress sites on the references. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Purely promotional and not remotely supported by any credible reliable sources. At least two of the sources cited (royalhousemim.org and augustansociety.org) may well merit adding to our blacklist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally no sourcing found for this individual; article appears connected to the recent Byzantine prince article that was deleted, which is a huge red flag. Sourcing used now in the article is not helpful Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No socks have appeared yet, I wonder if we've seen them all already. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Puffery bearing a striking resemblance to the old Maltese nobility nonsense. Utter failure of the GNG and WP:PROMO. Ravenswing 13:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure puffery. FYI, I nominated a connected web of articles related to the Most Honourable Order of Omukama Chwa II Kabalega, an award Obeng II received and very much in the same vein as this article, but am not sure if they need to be bundled, or sent to AfD, or what. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustan Society, which also seems connected, or at least frequently used as a questionable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the seven-article bundled AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara, which combines the PRODs I had done and other articles I had missed. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone's sentiments above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:07, 30 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 due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

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

All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, and Internet. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 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!} 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to remove all references to her previous identity as Selen. Otherwise, redirect to Nijisanji. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 04:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the previous identity User:Hansen Sebastian, I don't see any BLP or privacy issues. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India], then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".

and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 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 delete‎. czar 02:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Lakmal

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

Although subject may be covered by WP:NCRICKET (Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level [...] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof), with a single appearance for a club side more than 20 years ago, there is no indication the subject has received significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline. C 679 10:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. C 679 10:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment - either one article is the problem or thousands. And if we isolate individual articles - in both English and non-English speaking countries - this does nothing to solve the problem we've landed ourselves in. Bobo . 17:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found any WP:SIGCOV confirmation. Tau Corvi (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie M. Frost

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

Fails to pass the general notability guidelines. Zero coverage online beyond a couple of related obituaries. Article is mostly cited to her husband's book. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Note that in such cases you can make a WP:BUNDLE nomination. Tercer (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be the standard story of that time of a woman who became a schoolteacher, got married, and then vanished from the public record. I can't read the supposedly archived newspaper.com links, but [1] and [9] appear to be about her husband, [2] is a paid family death notice, [3-8] are neither independent nor reliably published, and [10] appears to be a brief marriage announcement. That is far from enough for GNG, the only relevant notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this subject is notable. The strongest ref is a likely non-notable book written by her husband. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I will agree that being a schoolteacher is a worthwhile thing to do with one's life, that and that alone isn't enough for an article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 30 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× ☎ 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Frost

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

Fails to pass the notability guidelines for academics. While the article says that she was a 'Distinguished Professor', none of the sources nor the Capital Community College website match that. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For further context, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pervasive,_deliberate_falsification_of_sources_in_hoax_articles_from_COI_editor; this article is part of a series from the same author. jp×g 🗯️ 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. The only source that could potentially indicate that turned out to be just a press release. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Tercer (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources are either published by the subject or close relatives. A cursory google search did not turn up more either. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few minutes ago I indicated in the discussion of two dissertations why I didn't think she was notable enough for an article. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think distinguished professor at a community college should count for WP:PROF#C5 and we have no documentation of that title, nor evidence of any other form of notability. Searching Google Scholar for her publications found nothing of note, instead mostly finding publications by some five other people named Janet Frost (themselves not cited heavily enough for WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Connecticut, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per above at this point, tbdesu. jp×g 🗯️ 16:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not substantiate the "Distinguished Professor" title, or indeed find any evidence that the college in question even awards that title. That claim may well have been "AI" bullshitting. None of the other WP:PROF criteria appear to be met, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sentiments of everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:20, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 6

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

No reliable sources [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Spaceflight, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. It's very likely to become an article with many reliable sources closer to the flight. --mfb (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IFT-5 will likely launch in August and testing on the proposed ship/booster for 6 has already begun Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creation was premature, but information with reliable sources is already being added. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:50, 30 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 Buffyverse novels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine

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

Run-off-the-mill merchandise without impact (WP:N). It has the same problems as List of Buffyverse guidebooks. Its existence is already summarized in one sentence in the TV show's main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Journalism. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without doing a search for this, I think this could be safely merged to an appropriate article cataloguing such things. I don't see how it needs its own article. Having said that, Buffy merchandise and fandom is definitely a topic that's been covered in RS'es, so deletion is not warranted even if merging clearly is. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although I am not completely sure about the best target, or keep. The Buffyverse Catalog as a serious independent source has an extended chapter on the magazine(s), The Whedonverse Catalog has a shorter section. So the sparse sentence at Buffy the Vampire Slayer should at least be expanded somewhat. Not an ideal, but my preferred target would be List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels, and then possibly change the title to account for the somewhat expanded scope. Titan Magazines would be another possibility, but even less ideal. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Buffyverse novels and rename it List of Buffyverse literature. More appropriate merge target. --Mika1h (talk) 15:45, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in education

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

Very likely AI generated, with manually added citations. User has uploaded AI generated text to multiple articles before. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sample text: "potential to revolutionize learning processes, personalize instruction, and improve educational outcomes...improve student engagement, provide customized learning experiences, and streamline administrative tasks." Oh boy, I just won LLM bingo. As for sources, references 4 and 7 are real, but 7 never mentions AI at all, making it a case of SYNTH. Reference 13 also looks legit, though I don't have access to the full text to check its relevance. The others I didn't check but don't trust. AI in education is obviously a notable concept, but if the author can't put in the effort to write the article themself, why should the rest of us put in the effort to clean it up? Delete and let someone who actually wants to write an article write the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all of the referenced articles and books exist, but it seems unlikely that the sources are actually being used and accurately reflect the text. For one, [12] is referencing a 112 page book, but doesn't have page numbers for this list of 6 vague bullet points. Recon rabbit 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made multiple LLM generated edits to articles, and has only added sources when they've been reverted, with no changes to the text. Sources are likely randomly picked from a cursory google search of random keywords. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be what happened here too. Cirations added later, seperately, and with no changes to the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_education&diff=1225283548&oldid=1225276997 Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, AI-generated slop with citations retroactively added but not necessarily supporting the text. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no way this AI-generated garbage can form the basis of a useful article. There's nothing worth keeping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is broadly accurate, although some subsections of "Applications" look redundant and the sourcing is pretty bad (notably as a result of writing the article backwards). It would probably be easier to make a good article from there by only deleting the most problematic content than from scratch. But since the consensus seems to be to delete the article, I have no problem with it. Alenoach (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being actively misleading to the reader and a detriment to the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recently editted WP:TNT to describe scenarios like this, where large portions/entire article is made of AI.

Better to start clean then try to double check every reference for hallucination. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:41, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Coliseum (West Georgia)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: The page is a very short stub. While it does have a full table, there is nowhere near enough information on the page due to the lack of history and, presumably, lack of coverage on the construction and events at the venue. I actually considered constructing a Wikipedia article for The Coliseum back in November 2023, but I chose Halenbeck Hall instead due to the former's lack of resources. Centennial Center (Georgia College & State) would have certainly been a better choice for making a Wikipedia article. Wjenkins96 (talk)

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now—I am neutral at this time. @Wjenkins96: For future nominations, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Basketball, Volleyball, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Nominator does not cite any policies, and it is a notable venue given its status as a Division I arena and as the region's premier concert and special events venue. This is the Wolves' first season in Division I; if it was deleted, it would be the only Division I arena not to have its own article. Let's leave it up for a bit to give other editors a chance to improve it and fix what's lacking. Tom Danson (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for helping User:Wjenkins96 with this AFD, please follow all of the instructions to the letter next time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete the article, now that they are a Division I school. The article should be expanded. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 11:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I previously studied the arena/facility and I’m not sure this article can really be expanded aside from filler content (i.e. top attended games). The arena is a victim of circumstance if you compare it to another arena like O'Reilly Family Event Center, which opened at around the same time as The Coliseum, yet its construction had far more coverage by the city newspaper. I’m of the opinion that just because a school is Division I doesn’t necessarily mean their arena is entitled to a Wikipedia page. @Tom Danson states that deleting the page would make UWG the only school without a Wikipedia page for their basketball arena, but Queens (NC) does not have one. There are probably close to seventy-five arena articles, perhaps more, that should be deleted because they are stubs and, for whatever reason, cannot be expanded upon. The same goes for most Division II arenas that aren’t of at least a “Start” rating. Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:35, 30 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#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagontaas, Bukidnon

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

This does not satisfy WP:NPLACE as sources I found are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 24 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) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia,_Bukidnon#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia, Bukidnon. Fails WP:NPLACE per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:18, 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator was blocked and I can't assume this was good-faith to begin with per their ANI adventures; the fact that the subject was found after six years only solidifies the case's N/GNG bonafides. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Alex Batty

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

Not really notable enough person for an article, i've seen lots of missing person and children articles but Alex Batty only became relevant again once he was found. Missing children are always being reported and I don't see how this stands out to others. BasketballDog21 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Spain. BasketballDog21 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator has been blocked as a sock. Borgenland (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough citations to pass WP:GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:08, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Milne

(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. A few sentences here, a pair of sentences here, but nothing significant. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:41, 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 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!} 03:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durian Industries

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources here and what I find in a WP:BEFORE are unreliable and not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like promotional article with 2 sources clearly promoting the opening of stores in new locations and it's Furniture & Decor. It does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:59, 30 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!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikio Group

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly PR and the company website also draws a blank. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 3:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sources from PR campaigns and searches did not yield any useful result that could sustain the page. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:41, 30 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!} 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riceville, Indiana

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

Indications are that this is a rail point which someone hoped would grow into a town, but which never did. Searching was not helped by Google's insistence on giving me hits about people named Rice and about Riceville, Iowa, but I got nothing solid. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find a passing mention in a history book: [23], and the place appears on USGS maps, but never as more than a couple of houses, which is what it is today. If sources appear I could be persuaded to change to keep, but not with what we have now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Note there is a Riceville in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, making it a lot harder to find relevant info. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 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 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!} 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Manifestations

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Could not find any significant independent coverage of this book in ProQuest or Google. The current article is a mess of WP:OR with (broken) citations including Amazon, auction websites, and library catalogs. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The book does appear to be regarded as a rare book, per this bookseller, with an intriguing history of suppression, which could plausibly have resulted in (print) newspaper coverage in the 80s. However, I couldn't find any such coverage in ProQuest or NewspaperARCHIVE.com . I wish Newspapers.com was currently available because that's where I typically have the best luck for this type of thing. But in the absence of any proper RS, there's no good rationale for a keep. No good merge target either, since the authors do not have articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Newspapers.com tip, I ran a search and there are 23 hits, but none have to do with the book. I agree it seems interesting but with no RS to support it I think it's a delete unfortunately. Astaire (talk) 13:13, 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 keep‎. I have to also note the absence of a policy-based deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Kapital, Volume I

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

Don't see why each separate volume of Das Kapital would need its own article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs trimming, but seems to be a valid page split overall. Each volume is quite different from the other, so including detailed analyses (as would be expected with a foundational work) of all three into one article would bloat it beyond compare. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one, it differs from the others in that it was the only volume that was published before Marx died. The volumes came years apart and are obviously standalone works in addition to bearing an overarching title. The book had almost two decades of reception before the second volume came out. Its bearing on world history has not been commented by the nominator, who has not provided a real reason for deletion either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge I'm not sure we have such a lengthy summary of many other books besides the Bible. The main article should include a better more concise summary and the two short sections at the bottom. Reywas92^Talk 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many, many scholarly studies have been written about volume I of Capital. For example (titles I pulled from two minutes of Googling...) there's Fredric Jameson's Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One and Riccardo Bellofiore/Nicola Taylor's collection The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume I of Marx's Capital. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sole spinout of a series of three volumes covered at the WP:SS parent topic. I'm not seeing any issue with the way this is logically organized, and notability is not seriously in question. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Absence of delete rationale." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article could use some work, but the sources from Josh Milburn are sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:34, 30 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. Strong arguments presented by both sides, but after three weeks, no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the sources that establish notability. Before search only brings sponsored or paid for articles and those can't be used to prove notability. Please see my response to the claim of " A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company" above. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may look not sourced well but it meets Listed rule and I see it does have some sufficient reliable sources. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~~Looking at the sources provided by Dclemens above, this is an article reporting on residents complaints about a totally different company so I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article.~~ This is about the rebranding and name change, totally relies on the company announcements and "launch", no in-depth "Independent Content". This, the third article from Modern Ghana is about the opening of new offices and what was said by the CEO at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, ending with a two sentence description about the company, not in-depth "Independent Content", fails NCORP. Finally, the GhanaWeb article has nothing to do with this company, ~~again begging the question was this article actually read~~. I'm unable to locate any analyst reports containing sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet our criteria. Finally, more than one editor has used reasoning that WP:LISTED applies therefore it meets our notability criteria - except LISTED clearly says a listing doesn't mean the company is automatically notable - we still require sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing 19:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comments above, "I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article" and "again begging the question was this article actually read" per WP:AGF. I did indeed read the articles. They are not about a totally different company. The headline in Modern Ghana says: "Ayimensah-Kweiman residents bare teeth at Ken Ofori-Atta's Enterprise Group for snatching land to construct commercial cemetery, mortuary." Ofori-Atta was a director of the Enterprise Group until 2015, according to page 7 of the annual report on the website of the same Enterprise Group that is the subject of this AfD, thus, unless you believe ModernGhana to be an entirely unreliable source, the article is talking about the correct company. The GhanaWeb article also discusses allegations about the influence of the same Enterprise Group (see reference to Ofori-Atta starting in the sixth paragraph). I don't !vote in an AfD unless I have reviewed the sources and done a WP:BEFORE search, and it is not WP:CIVIL for an editor to accuse another of lying about reading the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I've withdrawn the comments which say the articles refer to a different company and any reference or implication that you may not have read the articles. I also accept that my comments were personal and entirely unnecessary and for that I apologise. In the interests of completeness, this does not mean that because those articles mention the company that they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The first article relating to the residents' protest is a mention in passing only which provides no information about the company. I would be interested to hear why you believe this meets the criteria, specifically, what content within that article is in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. Similarly with the GhanaWeb article, it mentions the company in passing, no other information, so I'm interested to understand what specific content makes you say it goes towards notability? HighKing 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. Quick reply on the substance: Modern Ghana #1 has SIGCOV of the company for criticism of its development plans. (It may not look like it references the company but the story doesn't capitalize its name to make it as easily identifiable. There are several references to it and the protests are specifically against the company.) Modern Ghana #2 is an article about the company's rebranding, and rebranding is not excluded as "routine coverage" under WP:ORGTRIV. Unless it's a reprint of a press release or an interview, I'm not in the business of identifying how much independent reporting did or didn't go into it. It doesn't solely quote from the company's officials, though. Modern Ghana #3 might initially appear to be disqualified under ORGTRIV, but that only excludes routine coverage of "openings and closings of local branches, franchises and shops," and this is coverage of its corporate headquarters. The GhanaWeb piece is the weakest but it provides coverage of the role of Enterprise Group executives in influencing Ghanaian finance policy. YMMV, and I don't think your assessment is unreasonable, but I also think mine is reasonable based on the applicable criteria as discussed above. In borderline cases like this one I generally let the balance tip toward interpreting the sources to qualify rather than be excluded. (P.S. I'll be offline most of the rest of the week, at least away from my laptop, so won't be able to chime in further.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the arguments given by User:HighKing which have convinced me that this does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 31 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!} 02:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Kyong-shik

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 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 delete‎. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Malta destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common sense.

Let's start with common sense: why on earth do we have an article listing destinations that Air Malta DOES NOT FLY TO! Every destination here is listed as "terminated" or "Airport Closed"!

WP:NOT is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of services that Air Malta possibly provided at some point but now no longer does.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by Air Malta are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. I could go through every single one of the sources cited but there is little point in repeating the same statement over and over - these are all either company announcements, or reports in local/industry press based entirely on company press-releases and statements. For example the Malta Today story is based entirely on a statement by a company spokesman.

This is also original research. None of these sources show that these flights were offered (or terminated) in January 2023. This can be said because none of the sources are dated to January 2023 - some are later, some are anything up to a decade or more earlier.

This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company that can change from one week to the next. It is the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings in August 1987 or all Pizza Huts in December 1998. Simply the worst kind of indiscriminate information. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and Malta. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't believe the debate over airline destinations is still ongoing. Listings of every single place every airline has ever run a service to ever is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's just bizarre. Commercial developments should be folded into main article prose, line changes that aren't part of a wider commercial development just aren't encyclopaedic. BrigadierG (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list of services possibly provided at some point in time, per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at List of Vietnam Airlines destinations. First of all Air Malta is no longer an extant business, so many of the points don't apply. I also have no idea what anyone here believes INDISCRIMINATE means, as there's a clear finite limit to what could possibly be on this list. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to keep a list.... of places... that Air Malta... doesn't fly to...? FOARP (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because where Air Malta operated is encyclopedic information, and a verb tense is easily edited. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where... they don't fly to ... is encyclopaedic? A listing of destinations served on a random date of no actual significance, largely copied off a defunct company website, each listed as "terminated" with no other context, is "a summary of knowledge"? FOARP (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It summarises where they flew shortly before they ceased trading. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023 was more than a year before they stopped trading in March 2024. In a business where flights change from week to week that's hardly that close to that date. Even worse, this doesn't "[summarise] where they flew shortly before they ceased trading" because these are the destinations they may have flown to at any point up to ten years or more before they ceased trading (one is sourced to a 404 link visited in 2011) and plainly weren't flying to either in January 2023 or in March 2024.

The real point you're trying to make here is that any destination an airline ever flew to is, to you, automatically of encyclopaedic value. I don't think that's a position anyone on Wikipedia outside of airline fandom would endorse. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flights don't necessarily change weekly, and almost every flight change will be noted in at least some publication somewhere. Whenever there's a new flight to where I live it's generally news. There are airlines which wouldn't be notable enough for this information to be kept, but I am not making the argument you think I am making. The only thing we're looking at is if this is notable, and they're clearly of note: [24] [25] [26] [27] and an older [28] Most of your concerns can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to cover off these sources:
Air Service One is industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The article is also entirely based on output from Cirium which is an aggregator of data from airlines. Ultimately everything in this piece comes direct from the Airline and is not independent.

Simple Flying is industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The article is entirely based on statements from the airline, again, not independent of the source.

Aviation Week is, again, industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The Central Bank of Malta (another branch of the Maltese government that owns the airlines) whose report is quoted is not independent of the subject, and anyway discusses the new airline KM Malta, and not the old airline.

Live and Let's Fly is a industry blog. The piece is based on a press-release from KM Malta.

Another Aviation Week piece based on a press-release.

Every single thing here is exactly the kind of run-of-the-mill reportage that WP:NORG clearly tells us doesn't count towards establishing notability - see particular WP:TRADES. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it comes from the airline, the airline publishes its schedules and then it gets reported on in trade publications and in normal media: [29] It's not a good reason for excluding perfectly encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which counts for NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the airline is no longer operating I would suggest a reorganization so it's not just a table full of "Terminated", but my points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations apply here as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed seondary sourcing to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:NCORP. The aviation sources would seemingly help little for establishing notability per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air Malta#Destinations. Even if this table were notable, WP:PAGEDECIDE notes that there times when it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; the target for the merge is not too big as to not be able to handle the table, and it makes sense to keep these two together in one article so as to present the information on the destinations within the broader context of the article on the airline. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per @Reywas92 and @SportingFlyer

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. We shouldn't be hosting a list of every single place that Air Malta flew to in history. This is an indiscriminate collection of information because no careful judgment or selectivity was involved in making the list. Even if the airline flew to some random city for a couple months in the 1980s, it gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Egregious failure of IINFO/NCORP. The entries in this list are primary/non-independently-sourced and have no evidence of ever having been encyclopedic, so I would object to a merge. If any given destination is actually BALASP then it can be discussed in the main article, but nothing in this list is worth retaining. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 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!} 02:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Shultz

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ohio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG here. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 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 merge‎ to List of schools in Selangor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK TTDI Jaya

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG.) The school already has an article in Malay Wikipedia so an English one would be unnecessary. N niyaz (talk) 07:34, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 9 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!} 06:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We should not delete the article on SMK TTDI Jaya. Yes, there is a parallel in another Wikipedia edition. Yet, each language edition has distinct readers and needs. The English version fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In that case, it may be suitable to merge the English content into a broader article about schools in the region. Or, we can draftify it until we find more sources. This approach respects the need for information on other language Wikipedias. It also maintains the quality and notability standards of English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstridMitch (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ms:Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan TTDI Jaya is the other article; unfortunately it is completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect, you have to identify an existing article in the English Wikipedia that it can be a viable target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are 11 thousand schools in Malaysia, schools like SMK TTDI Jaya, SMK Seri Kembangan and SMJK Yoke Kuan that lacks notability shouldn't be merged. If the outcome of these schools are merged or keep, it would mean 8-9 thousand schools are also eligible to have an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N niyaz (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Selangor. N niyaz (talk) 07:13, 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 redirect‎ to 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Kwang-min

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 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]
Redirect - to 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Lâm (talk) 08:39, 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!} 02:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Lotus Conglomerate

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

Article created as WP:NPOVFACT violation to disparage a WP:BLP [30]. Looks multiple unconnected companies listed under the same umbrella tied together to create an elaborate WP:HOAX and many sections unrelated to company. For actual company, WP:RECENT focus on a single event from the 5 years back, see talk page for details. Previous points removed, I believe remaining actual subject of article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Hence, recommend for deletion.Hibiscus192255 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Finance, Companies, Education, Sports, India, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been editing related articles from many months and I agree with above arguments made. This article’s creation seems a clear [WP:NPOVFACT], there are several unrelated sections and content in the article, minus which it doesn’t meet [WP:NOTABILITY] Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does look like article scope is bloated, then per WP:SBST, seems an otherwise minor organization that has received news coverage for only 1 event. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. The US website reference link provided seems like an unrelated organization. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned on the talk page, this article lacks proper referencing. It cites several irrelevant sources that do not mention the company. The article talks about two different companies: one based in Nebraska, USA, and another in Dubai, but there is insufficient evidence linking either to Kalki Bhagwan, his son NKV Krishna, or daughter-in-law Preetha Krishna. Additionally, some sections of the article are unrelated to the company. Notably, all sources referring to the company are from 2019, and there is no relevant information available about the company beyond that period.Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:21, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civic technology companies

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

Largely redundant of civic technology and dubious sources throughout. The list is largely non-notable organizations. Anything useful here could be merged into civic technology. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely redundant article and the list is stuffed full of things that fail notability. CoconutOctopus talk 06:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subjects of the list are themselves mostly non-notable and nothing that's not already covered at civic technology. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:54, 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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank A. Barnhart

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

I couldn't find any other sources besides the self-published theatre link. Does not meet notability criteria. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, it's not clear (from the article) that the subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE. If he is, then work needs doing to the article to demonstrate that notability. (Given the article has been tagged with Template:Notability and Template:BLP sources for over 10 years and has not really been edited since then, it feels unlikely that work will be done.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:42, 23 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is mentioned in this local newspaper review but I wouldn't describe it as WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Sexuality and gender, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 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.

[1] Alquds, Newspaper. https://www.alquds.co.uk/هذه-خصوصيتي-متضامن-مع-د-رولا-قوّاس/. Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] Norwich, UEA. UEA https://www.uea.ac.uk/search/people/?query="film television and media". Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] Aljazeera, SJForum. https://sjforum.aljazeera.net/#speakers. Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] News, Raseef22. https://raseef22.net/author/169749-خلدون-شامي. Retrieved 27 July 2024. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]