Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 16	May 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Salmón

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because she enjoys in-depth coverage mainly by primary sources (the UN -- I also found university coverage of her as its associate but did not add it). In-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources appears not to exist. Separately, she remains far from passing special criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN as well. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty sure her position would meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, but regardless, there's been coverage of her since the appointment of both her and her activities (and North Korea being angry at her findings from her work). For example:

I think there's enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've reviewed the list and ported it to the article as Further Reading, with hopes it might underpin biographical content in the future. I appreciate your research. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, Law, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The UN special rapporteur post seems to satisfay WP:ACADEMIC #7: having an impact outside academia in her academic capacity, in this case being appointed by the UN as a legal expert on human rights. PamD 07:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree that she meets NPOL, but being a UN rapporteur and having regular media coverage meets NACADEMIC #7. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Likely passes GNG with the JoonAng and other newspaper articles listed above. I'm unsure about satisfying academic notability, but there is ample coverage in RS for general notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone searched in Spanish for Spanish sources. They wouldnt come up if looking in English. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. I would expect searching in Korean and whatever the Hangul transliteration of her name is would also be fruitful. Silver seren^C 20:29, 23 May 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!} 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brink

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT.Dowrylauds (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Haupt

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and Germany. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of transactional stuff, but struggling to find enough for a GNG pass. No list for German internationals exists currently, so no suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PabloDraw

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this passes WP: N. Previous AfDs didn't reach a consensus, but not a single one of the Keep votes in any of those AfDs actually cites any notability guidelines. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems this may be yet another WP:BFDI situation. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching on Google, DDG, and Kagi, and archive.org texts turned up no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Also the article has been unreferenced since 2004. Previous keep votes weren't based on guidelines. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find coverage for this software package, so not meeting requirements. The other AfD votes don't seen to hold much weight with current guidelines, regardless, there isn't enough coverage to keep this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 21 May 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× ☎ 22:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Anmahian

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

Fails WP:BIO, puff piece on a WP:ROTM architect doing his job. Contains significant paid mainspace contributions by an employee. WP:NOTRESUME applies. The whole slew of awards is a form of WP:BOMBARD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Massachusetts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I fully agree with @Timtrent's deletion nomination. Will only add that the WP:PAID edits were undisclosed until very recently.

Melmann 09:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with @Timtrent's deletion nomination.

Delete: More coverage found about the company than this person. A few name drops in articles, rest are PR items I find. Very PROMO. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 World Aquatics Artistic Swimming World Cup

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

This page has no references, and so fails both verifiability and general notability. It has been moved to draft space twice, by User:Hey man im josh and User:Wikishovel, and moved back to article space twice by the originator with no apparent improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and France. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add references and links. You don't have to draft it for that. In addition, you can see what it is all about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hshezsvsbebe (talk • contribs)
- Yes, we do have to draftify articles that have no references. Verifiability is a non-negotiable core policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest draftifying, as it's an international event sponsored by an international governing body, but I can't find any significant coverage of the event yet in RS, even though we're on the second day of a 3-day event. A redirect to World Aquatics is another possibility. Maybe if subsequent events get better coverage, this could be merged later into a single article World Aquatics Artistic Swimming World Cup. This is the second year that this tournament was held, and according to the World Aquatics article, it replaces the World Series that was held 2017–2022 [1]. Wikishovel (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of possibilities mentioned but we need opinions for specific outcomes they want to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, still not seeing significant coverage online in independent sources following the event. Wikishovel (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ferreira

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a few bits out there, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Fishback

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

WP:BIO, provided reason why he was notable (head of macro) is not substantiated by sources and was publicly disputed by previous employer. Fails WP:GNG, only secondary source is a few quotes in Fox News, all of the others are blogs/podcasts/primary sources Reflord (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Not notable and does not merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete footnotes one, five, and fifteen mention him in passing in one sentence. which WP:BIO says doesn't qualify. Footnote two is the New York Post and very biased, literally using the phrase "lefty censors"[2] which violates WP:NPOV. I'll also echo failing WP:GNG. Footnotes five, ten, eleven, and twelve are all Fox News. While footnotes six, seven, and eight provide detail about a lawsuit he's involved in, this isn't "worthy of notice," "remarkable," or "significant" per WP:BIO. These are the sources that another commenter added. I would respond directly to that but I don't see the reply button on their comment. KickAffs TakeNegs (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a few more WP:RS to boost notability. Hence WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are met. All the sources used prove the subject met the demands of WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Here are the 3 new sources added as extra:
^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

References

^ Jack Raines,"Schrödinger's head of macro". sherwood.news. Retrieved 21 May 2024.
^ "SGreenlight Capital's clash with an ex-employee has captivated the hedge-fund world". fnlondon.com. Retrieved 21 May 2024.
^ Bradley Saacks,"David Einhorn was once the young thorn in the side of executives. Now he's dealing with his own". businessinsider.com. 17 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

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

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

The result was procedural close‎ as the AfD was started by a now-blocked sock. Number 5 7 22:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DarwinHealth

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "DarwinHealth" but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH.

Sure there are mentions of DarwinHealth in articles about targeted medicine but this article isn't based on those mentions it's fluffed up from the organization's first-hand research and press releases because there are no independent peer reviews of this company's work yet. One of the sources that looks like it might support notability, the WSJ article is, upon closer inspection an essay written by none other than the company's CEO then we have a load more primary sources like this listings site https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/united-states-of-america-usa/darwinhealth/59f35838b615d2287807e4cd a press release in PharmaBiz https://www.pharmabiz.com/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=138344&sid=2 and the mother of all primary, promotional, PR puffery the organization's about us page https://darwinhealth.com/about/ this article fails WP:NCORP fails WP:CORPDEPTH fails WP:N and should be deleted. Dafydd y Corach (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Mathematics, Medicine, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 17 May 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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Pakrashi

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

Contested WP:CSD. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a "veteran leader" of a party doesn't inherently makes one notable. Sources found both here and WP:BEFORE can not establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bangladesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick Google Book search shows plenty of books mentioning him. I am not confident about this AfD. GrabUp - Talk 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup Did you find significant coverage or passing mentions? GNG isn’t established by merely passing mentions. It has to be SIGCOV or coverage to an extent. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Satish Pakrashi and Niranjan Sen of Barisal ( this latter had his organization in Murshidabad ) were prominent among the leaders of the Anushilan who joined the Revolt Group . [...] He met prominent revolutionaries such as Satish Pakrashi..." [3], "... Satish Pakrashi of Anusilan group were placed in charge of the Dacca cantonment." [4], "... Satish Pakrashi , Niranjan Sengupta and Ramesh Biswas , top leaders of the Anushilan revolt group and of Barisal group , were arrested by the police in a house in Mechua Bazaar , Calcutta , and subsequently more arrests were made ..." [5], etc, there are tons of books mentioning or discussing his role in the struggle for Indian independence. Moreover, he was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council for six years [6], so easily passes WP:NPOL. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman Can you add that last part to the article? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces: Are you convinced that he meets WP:NPOL? 2409:40E1:15:5561:F1ED:6FC2:CFDA:F32D (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously do, this wasn't the case when I nominated it because it wasn't stated inially that he was a member of the legislative council, which makes him pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Soman's research demonstrating that he was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council (and thus passes WP:NPOL). That fact should be added to the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I previously mentioned, I was not confident about this AfD. I agree with Soman's research. He was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council for six years, so he meets WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 06:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd keep this now based on Soman and Grabup's clear statement of him being in the legislative council. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:02, 21 May 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 programs broadcast by Hum TV#Horror or supernatural series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Aapke Qadmon Main

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage and announcements/press release based coverage like this and this, and pieces by freelancers in RS like this all of which isn't sufficient to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Horror_or_supernatural_series: listed there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:34, 18 May 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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Ka Dulha

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this which isn't sufficient to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angeline_Malik#As_a_director: listed there (just added it with a ref). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angeline_Malik#As_a_director: per Mushy. Does not meet GNG but redirect is sensible ATD option. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 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. Despite the limited participation, this cannot be soft-deleted, as it qualifies under G5 as the creation of an indef-blocked sock. No prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing, if sources establishing notability can be found. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altair4 Multimedia

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

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "Altair4 Multimedia," "Altair 4 Multimedia," and "Altair Multimedia," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. GSS ^💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Archaeology, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my check, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, which is needed to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The subject fails both of these guidelines. GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asset revesting

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

This buzzword soup appears to be sourced entirely to the book that invented the term (WP:NOTNEO) and the blog posts and press releases of the author promoting it (WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO). I am unable to find any reliable sources using the term, much less anything meeting the other three criteria. I'm not quite sure the tone is G11, so here we are. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there seems to be room for there to be an article on the concept of active investing & reversting, I'm not sure this exact phrase meets notability, and there are numerous problems as above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert P. Watson

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

The only real claim to fame in the article is a "former candidate for the United States House of Representatives" and an academic. The information for the candidate for the House of Representatives specifically states he was considering running and formed an exploratory committee. This does not meet the requirements for notability. The article was created in 2005 so there has been plenty of opportunities to add reliable sourced content if it existed, but from what I can see it doesn't exist. This individual does not meet the requirements for notability to have a stand alone Wikipedia article. VViking_TalkEdits 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Academic notability in the subject's field would probably be established via reviews of his books. Checking JSTOR finds at least one for The Ghost Ship of Brooklyn [7], Affairs of State [8], George Washington's Final Battle [9][10], The Presidents' Wives [11][12], The Nazi Titanic [13], and America's First Crisis [14]. So, there may be a WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR pass here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews I found for his many books. He also has a distinguished professorship but the case for WP:PROF#C5 hinges on whether one counts Lynn University as "a major institution of higher education and research". He's not notable as a politician but that's irrelevant; he's also not notable as an astronomical body nor as a species of insect. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I removed the political campaign from the article altogether, refocusing it on his academic career, as I could not find good enough sourcing. The best I found was this dubiously-reliable interview (also potentially WP:CIRCULAR) which mentions the campaign without any specifics in response to which Watson states "I plead temporary insanity." I don't think that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 22 May 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) 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Friday Media

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The only reference I can find that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this (note 3, and it's an edge case for notability since it seems to come from VinePair's WP:TRADES coverage.). All other sources in this article, as well as WP:BEFORE sources offering significant coverage, are press releases or sponsored content once you click through, even the Yahoo Finance pieces. Other references on this page are to LinkedIn, the subject's own website or other primary/user-generated sources. One item of significant coverage in an independent, secondary, reliable source is not enough; we need multiple. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the Nom. We are nowhere near CORPDEPTH with the sources in the article or elsewhere. My searches find very little at all, and nothing useful. This fails WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to my check, I agree with the nominator.WP:GNG and WP:NCORP require multiple in-depth coverages, but I found only one in-depth coverage. Other sources are just press releases and promotional materials. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jupither

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

Band fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND, WP:NMUSIC. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable and independent sources. Sources cited in article are (1) primarily about the lead singer, incidentally referencing the subject; (2) AllMusic which is of disputed reliability (and in any event is a single paragraph); and (3) a primary source. WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've found significant coverage in three different newspapers [15], "EU-sponsrad turné för nytt Skellefteå-band" in Östersunds-Posten 2000-12-05 and "Det är ju Jupither! Snart känner ni igen popkometerna" in Nerikes Allehanda 1999-11-24. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in any language is sufficient, and though I do not speak Swedish, I assume good faith on the part of the above searcher that the references cited qualify. Chubbles (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read the article at the link but I will also WP:AGF, withdraw my nomination and change my !vote to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 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) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Union broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and dead links, the only decent source is an announcment for a new announcer; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Pennsylvania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom ,fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:18, 24 May 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) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, only consist of a single one about the 2023 season; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Massachusetts. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we just going to keep nominating anything related to do with television on shoddy deletion premises? At worst this should be merged into individual season articles. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:22, 22 May 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 Nawabshah , which is the current target of the Benazirabad redirect, as a sensible ATD. Feel free to amend the target if the Nawabshah/Benazirabad title-war settles differently. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilawal Stadium

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Could not find any sources providing any actual coverage let alone significant coverage on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. This is little more than a dictionary entry. All of the sources currently on the article are passing mention with the actual subject not being Bilawal Stadium. The fact that something exists does not mean it is notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benazirabad as this venue is a prominent landmark in the city and is mentioned in the target page. Fails GNG and ORG and lacks standalone notability. Frank Anchor 13:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I found no in-depth coverage from a single reliable secondary source. However, WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources, so the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:17, 24 May 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 Astroinformatics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data-driven astronomy

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

This appears to be either or both a PhD project proposal, for a MA or Part II. It describes what will be done as part of an apparently funded proposal. Since there already is a more general page on the wider topic at Astroinformatics, I see no rationale for this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Computing. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the two topics appear to be similar sub-fields of data science, so perhaps a merge of Data-driven astronomy and Astroinformatics is in order? It appears notable. Praemonitus (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be a mix of general discussion about a field of research and a description of a specific project. A merge with astroinformatics as Praemonitus suggests could be reasonable, as could a merge with Galaxy Zoo. As the article is only a couple of weeks old, I think the best approach would be to draftify and allow the author to refocus this article so it is more clearly about a specific notable subject, or to move relevant parts into existing articles. Mgp28 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Astroinformatics per my original proposal. No deadline, as usual. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Astroinformatics: doesn't seem notable by itself. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bam

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Another case of a politician who got involved in the upcoming election and withdrew or defected to another party and stuff like that. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, some are unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and entrepreneur is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again another article created solely for the general election which fails of WP:BLP1E. It also fails WP:NPOL, as he was never elected as an MLA or MP, nor does he meet WP:GNG because the sources are not significant. These sources cannot establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:25, 17 May 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 James Follett#Radio without prejudice to selectively merging sourced content, if any. Owen× ☎ 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsearch Mindwarp

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing any RS to consider against the inclusion criteria - not all BBC radio dramas are notable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING WP:NOTPLOT JMWt (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very condensed version to author James Follett#Radio and redirect as WP:Alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Follett#Radio, nothing to merge since the article is unreferenced. --Mika1h (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:26, 17 May 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 NBC Sports Philadelphia#Sports coverage. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Postgame Live

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

No refs on the page for many years and I'm not seeing much that could be considered substantial RS to consider against the inclusion criteria. Possibly as an ATD could merge to NBC Sports Philadelphia JMWt (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NBC Sports Philadelphia#Sports coverage: it is mentioned there, making it a valid-enough alternative to deletion, but there's really nothing to merge (especially since this has been tagged as completely unsourced since 2009). The program itself is a run-of-the-mill postgame show that would not really be expected to merit its own significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to NBC Sports Philadelphia#Programming where it is mentioned. No WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NBC Sports Philadelphia#Sports coverage per suggestions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:13, 20 May 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!} 04:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leverx

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

Unfortunately, aside from the usual announcements and sponsored articles (excluded under WP:ORGTRIV and ORGIND respectively), I was unable to find any relevant coverage. The topic may be more suitable in a more comprehensive publication or database. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Florida. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable subject for wikipedia --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong page vote, was not planned for here --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a consultancy operating in SAP integration, etc. The given references are announcement-based; as the nominator indicates, these fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for Leverx or Emerline. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 17 May 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 KUAM-TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUAM-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; could merge with KUAM-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KUAM-TV: in some ways, this LPTV was essentially a "subchannel" before digital subchannels could even exist. Despite its major network affiliation, I doubt any coverage that might exist here would still establish any separate notability from the larger KUAM-TV. (Owing to the lack of present sourcing there is nothing to merge.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 18 May 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!} 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Sparrow Simpson

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

Nothing in the article suggests notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was a fairly prolific author, and did a lot to improve the library at St Paul's Cathedral. Anna795bc (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search shows the subject is not notable. With over 10,000 Anglican Priests the position is not notable. None of the books written by the subject has achieved Notability and notability is not inherited. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a weak delete. Had it been there are good sources to verify he wrote those books, this should have slightly meet WP:NAUTHOR. However, priests are not usually notable except in major cases of appointment in major offices verifiable by source per WP:GNG. This article is a good case of not meeting good sourcing for Wikipedia's inclusion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GT Racer

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

Source is entirely unsourced, does not assert notability other than being broadcasted on a cable channel and thus fails WP:GNG SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Transportation, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no sources and no evidence of notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:10, 18 May 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. Procedural Keep, no deletion rationale provided. "Feels like PROD" isn't a justified rationale to delete an article which should focus on notability and Wikipedia policies that aren't being met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hajizade

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete: Article is well written, however, feels like PROD--Correspondentman (talk) 06:36, 17 May 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 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Correspondentman: What does "feels like PROD" mean? Also, this article has already survived one deletion nomination – it's a good idea to summarize the previous consensus and give at least a brief argument against it. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa It seems that most of the users in the previous discussion are from Azerbaijan. A link to a website is like an advertisement. Correspondentman (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). Here is the discussion. He (User:Elshadiman) is banned on English Wikipedia too for sockpuppetry. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya, User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman, which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs, and this article was nominated and kept. — Toghrul R (t) 06:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment, you mixed something up Correspondentman (talk) 07:16, 18 May 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!} 06:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Mazimhaka

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

Only links to one article being her husband. Searching in google news, google scholar and JSTOR yields very little. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Rwanda. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Subject not notable neither does it passes WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article lists authorship of two books. If it is possible to find reliably published reviews of these (not pay-for-play newspaper placements), then WP:AUTHOR might be in play. I did not find any reviews in academic sources but there might be other types of source that my searches didn't cover.

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bamidele Onalaja

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Not enough sources to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I found the source below

[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. I'm of the opinion that some articles doesn't need to go through AFD instead a notability tag should be placed for it to be improved on if the editor placing it , isn't ready to find source.Otbest (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me help you take a look at the sources you provided here.

[23] — This source fails WP:INDEPENDENT for having statements on quote like "I am", "We have", etc. N
[24] — This source fails WP:SIGCOV as it only passes mentions of the subject. N
[25] — This pieces was clearly disclaimed by the reliable Punch as a Sponsored Content, which makes it fail WP:INDEPENDENT. N
[26] — This reliable piece does not provide WP:SIGCOV on Onalaja in its entirety. N
[27] — This unreliable piece (what's a news story without a byline?) is WP:ROUTINE coverage. N
[28] — This does not provide WP:SIGCOV either, plus, it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. N
[29] — Only this piece I consider both reliable, independent of the subject and covers the subject to an extent. Y

I hope this helps your understanding of how sources are handled individually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

@Vanderwaalforces: Thank you for your valuable contributions, which will positively impact the article in the long run. I believe the article should be kept, and a notability tag can be placed to encourage further improvements.

Based on my opinion on the comments you made on the sources

[30] — This source fails WP:INDEPENDENT for having statements on quote like "I am", "We have", etc. N

Response: The source "60 Leading Real Estate CEOs of 2022 in Nigeria (Part B)" from The Guardian does contain quotes and statements directly from the CEOs, which might seem promotional. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that such features often include direct quotes to provide insights directly from the subject being discussed. This does not inherently disqualify the source as non-independent.

[31] — This source fails WP:SIGCOV as it only passes mentions of the subject. N

Response: I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the source fails WP:SIGCOV due to only passing mentions of the subject. The article from This Day Live provides significant coverage of the controversy surrounding Onalaja's alleged unauthorized representation as the Chair of the Lagos Chapter. It details the reactions and statements from REDAN, offering context and specifics about the situation, which go beyond mere passing mentions. This level of detail and the focus of the article on this issue align with the criteria for significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV.

[32] — This pieces was clearly disclaimed by the reliable Punch as a Sponsored Content, which makes it fail WP:INDEPENDENT. N

Response: Reliability of the Source: Punch is a well-established and reputable news organization. The fact that they disclosed the sponsorship openly is a sign of their commitment to transparency. This transparency can help readers critically evaluate the content, but it does not automatically discredit the information presented.

Also the reliability of the information, one should look at the facts presented in the article itself and cross-reference them with other independent sources. If the claims about RevolutionPlus CEO Onalaja making Forbes Africa's Undiscovered Series list can be corroborated by other independent and credible sources, then the article’s content remains valid despite its sponsored nature.

[33] — This reliable piece does not provide WP:SIGCOV on Onalaja in its entirety. N

Response: This should be considered as providing significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV, as it thoroughly examines an important aspect of Onalaja's public and professional life.

[34] — This unreliable piece (what's a news story without a byline?) is WP:ROUTINE coverage. N

Response: While it's understandable to be cautious about sources lacking a byline, it's important to consider the broader context before deeming the piece unreliable. The absence of a byline doesn't automatically discredit the content; many reputable outlets occasionally publish articles without bylines for various reasons, such as protecting the identity of the journalist or because the piece was a collaborative effort.

[35] — This does not provide WP:SIGCOV either, plus, it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. N

Response: The source on the Onalajas’ induction into the Arch Klump Society represents a notable achievement within the philanthropic and service community, and the coverage in Independent.ng reflects the significance of their contributions both locally and globally.

Thank you again for your contribution

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreyfranklin533 With your “Response”s it is clear that you do not understand how GNG works yet. Also, you explanations to do in how you got the image as your “Own work”, kindly do explain. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

@Vanderwaalforces I appreciate your feedback, and I'm here to clarify any misunderstandings. Regarding my responses on how GNG work, I'm committed to continually improving and learning more about it.

Regarding the "Own work" label on my image, I recognize that there could be some confusion. Transparency is key. As a new contriubor who is open to learning, I want to assure you that I strictly follow ethical standards. When I mark an image as "Own work," it means I made it myself.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreyfranklin533 Okay, it is now clear that this is actuslly an article about yourself. You are strongly discouraged to write an article about yourself on English Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIO. It is an example of conflict of interest and violates Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest and in extension, will most likely violate the neutral point of view policy.

Also, please stop adding “Keep” to every of your replies, you’ve !voted three times now which is not supposed to be so. Please, strike any two of them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanderwaalforcesThis article is clearly not about myself and it does not in anyway violates Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest. Like I have said, I am open to suggestions from the community to improve the article's neutrality and quality, and this can be done without nominating the article for deletion.

Thanks.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I drop the stick here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep -~~ The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which will attain higher grades as it develops over time. Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean an article can't fail an AFD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a PR based on other PR profiles. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra The article doesn't showcase any public relations (PR) infleunce. Also, the sources mentioned are indeed credible and well-recognized .

Kindly expantiate what you mean by PR based in the narrative.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Coreyfranklin533: I feel the way you are going instead of dialogue, you might end up making this article I feel has potential be deleted. Portrait your point and allow admin or the closing editor to decide but to me I feel he is notable under WP:BASIC Otbest (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otbest

Thank you for pointing that out. Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO as pointed out by the nominator. None of the businesses he founded are notable; the accolades he has received are also not notable. Three of the article's nine sources are about the subject receiving some sort of honorary reward. This article is pretty much WP:PROMO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608 @Vanderwaalforces

The businesses he founded are indeed notable. They have made significant impacts in their respective industries and have been covered by reputable sources. The success and influence of these businesses contribute to his overall notability.

The subject has received accolades from Forbes Africa, which is a highly reputable and notable source.

I am open to corrections and welcome any suggestions for improvement to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Vanderwaalforces' thorough source analysis. The page author's persistent sealioning comments (like "The fact that they disclosed the sponsorship openly is a sign of their commitment to transparency," LOL) illustrate a deep lack of understanding of policy. Meanwhile, as Vanderwaalforces notes, if the author is truly the photographer/copyright holder of the photo uploaded to Commons, then this page has a major WP:COI problem on top of its non-notability, and if the photo is not the author's own work, the photo needs to be deleted pronto. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 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 has withdrawn their nomination and voted to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Slopes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Silicon Slopes

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

Article is well sourced and well written, however, it does not refer to a municipality, but an ill-defined geographic area. Silicon Slopes is essentially a commercial high tech real estate project that over time grew out of Thanksgiving Point with a large amount (over 40%) of vacant real estate and this article is the ad for that . Article makes more sense merged into Utah Valley since having a standalone article is nothing more than advertising for commercial real estate in Lehi, Utah. Recommend delete or merge into the previously mentioned articles. KindHorta (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to keep and request this Afd be closed. Whether the content should be merged into Utah Valley is another discussion for another day. The article has been improved to the point it's no longer a blatant advertisement. KindHorta (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine. As this well-sourced article notes, the concept is distinct and well-established, but there's no evidence to say Silicon Slopes is centered on Lehi versus the broader Wasatch Front region. Compare the lede for Silicon Valley: "Silicon Valley is a region in Northern California that is a global center for high technology and innovation. Located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area, it corresponds roughly to the geographical area of the Santa Clara Valley." Likewise, for this, I'd suggest that framing Silicon Slopes like this: "Silicon Slopes is a term that defines the part of Utah that is a major economic center for technology and innovation businesses. Centered on the cities of Salt Lake City and Provo and their surrounding suburbs, it corresponds roughly to the geographical area of the Wasatch Front." In fact, I'm going to make that change right now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for advertising and honestly, that's all this article is about. Your corrections help a little but seriously, this article is an advertisement. I am not certain that claiming the entire Wasatch Front, which is hundreds of miles long, encompasses Silicon Slopes just because the article says so. Silicon Slopes is centered at point of the mountain north of Lehi, and that's where it started from the Thanksgiving Point commercial real estate complex which expanded over time. This article is a blatant advertisement and is written as such. KindHorta (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's too promotional, then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Deletion is for articles that don't belong on Wikipedia at all, usually for notability reasons. There's plenty of WP:SIRS sourcing for "Silicon Slopes" as a concept (and it's sourced as well as or better than most of the other "Silicon ___" appellations with articles on Wikipedia). This debate isn't about whether the article is promotional; it's about whether the topic is notable. Do you disagree? Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Lehi, Utah - Ancestry.com moved its headquarters from Provo to Lehi in May 2016. The headquarters building is located in The Corporate Center at Traverse Mountain. Microsoft has an engineering department specializing in the next version of its MDOP (Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack), code-named "Park City."[19] Initially employing 100, Microsoft has built a second building to house its staff.[20] Microsoft Southwest District is located at 3400 N. Ashton Blvd., Suite 300 Lehi, Utah 84043.[21] Other Thanksgiving Park tenants are Oracle Corporation, Infusionsoft, Workfront, Vivint Solar, Agel Enterprises, DigiCert, Jolt and ProPay Inc.[22]. Article should be deleted are merged, preferably merged into Utah Valley which is where is belongs. KindHorta (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources make clear that "Silicon Slopes" refers to a wider area beyond Lehi: Draper (Deseret News, SL Tribune), Midvale (KSL News Radio), Ogden (Utah Business, TechCrunch, Axios), South Jordan Utah Business), American Fork (Utah Business), and Provo KUER). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are a lot of promotional articles claimed to be sources, and I also agree the topic is notable. What I am debating is where it should be mentioned. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are well sourced but turn out to be advertisements and get deleted or merged. "Silicon Slopes" is now a marketing term for any high tech company in Utah. I lived in Utah for 30 years and was living there when Silicon Slopes was being built and I can tell you with certainty it only referred to the area north of Lehi, and it did not embrace the 200 or so miles along the entire Wasatch front, which is what you are claiming. You are just flat wrong and the sources you quote are all promotional nonsense advertising high tech real estate in Lehi, Utah. KindHorta (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note this is the second AfD for this article. The first was improperly overwritten by the nominator here. Owen× ☎ 06:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no listing on the talk page of the previous Afd, and when I inserted the template it ended up in the wrong place. I tried to go back after the fact but I may need some help with doing that. Sorry. KindHorta (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Part of the problem here is that the nominator is removing numerous WP:SIRS from the article (under the guise of removing "advertising") that support the idea of "Silicon Slopes" as a collective name for the regional tech economy and collapsing the concept to a single nonprofit with the same name, which is a form of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I have no dog in this fight other than that I have heard numerous people referring to the greater Salt Lake region this way, and reliable sources (such as the ones I've cited upthread) confirm this usage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly said, "Silicon Slopes" is a marketing platform to advertise Utah Valley, real estate and workforce as the next "Silicon Valley". All of my content is backed up with concrete secondary sources. All of these sources you keep quoting have their origins from siliconslopes.com, a "mormons only" club trying to convince large high tech companies to settle in Utah and employ mormons. If you are a non-mormon, LGBT, or a woman you won't get a job there or equal pay comparable to the diversity in the real Silicon Valley, and you will face discrimination in housing and other areas of life if you move there. Please stop drinking the Silicon Slopes Koolaide and actually go and read and research these sources. What's original research is claiming that "Silicon Slopes" is a regional area of Utah when in fact the sources point to it as a crowd-marketing scam to lure people into Utah that is run by mormon interests. There is no map or regional area, municipality, or city with the name "Silicon Slopes". It's original research to claim Silicon Slopes is the same as "Wasatch Front". KindHorta (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's the same as the Wasatch Front. I said it encompasses a tech economy throughout the Wasatch Front area. I have no idea who you are but you seem to have a major axe to grind here. This language you've added in the article ("Although often compared to Silicon Valley, Silicon Slopes lacks the workforce diversity and climate of equality and inclusiveness which exists in Silicon Valley. Due to the strong influence of the Mormon Church in the area, women, LGBT, and minorities face significant challenges in the workplace in Utah and discrimination in pay and other benefits. Salt Lake City is somewhat more inclusive than Utah Valley where Silicon Slopes is based, which is over 90% Latter Day Saint in terms of population. Incidents of antisemitism and discrimination of LGBT and women have been reported in the Silicon Slopes workplace. The Silicon Slopes job market is also reported to be over-hyped in comparison to Silicon Valley.") is not NPOV, and you appear to be a WP:SPA since your edits are only on this article and this AfD. Ironically, considering you started this AfD by complaining about promotional content, what you are doing appears to be WP:PROMOTION of a particular point of view. As you point out above, you believe this is a "crowd marketing scam" run by shadowy "mormon interests." I have been assuming good faith until now but seeing these kind of comments, there is no way you are in a position to edit this article fairly and I think you should step back from the article and let this AfD run its course. P.S. I'm not Mormon, I don't live in Utah, I don't work in tech, I have no affiliation with anything to do with this subject matter, but I can read the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of that content you object to is backed up with credible reliable secondary sources. I usually just edit with my IP, but you need an account to Afd and I have been forthright about that and disclosed it as required by WP policy. I have no axe to grind here other than improving the quality of WP. I also know a lot about this topic and I came across this article and saw it flagged as advertising and it in fact is advertising, so I reviewed it and tried to improve it. I have to wonder if you have a WP:COI. Can you please disclose your relationship to this topic. KindHorta (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you above I don't have one. Look at my contribution history -- I'm a new page reviewer working this month to clear the new page review backlog, so I engage in tons of discussions here on many different topics. I'm able to review the sources and I know the framework for how they validate notability or not. I had heard casual mention of this topic a couple times before but didn't dig in until I reviewed your AfD. Meanwhile, you have used biased and POV language and disclosed that you lived close to the original development, so obviously you have a specific take on it. And like I said, perhaps you should step back and let this this AfD take its course. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the advertising has been removed for the most part and silicon slopes has been "unmasked" in the article, I hope the article get's kept or merged. I have consistently said I think the topic is notable and belongs on WP, but cleaned up and properly scaled. I think this article goes well with Utah Valley and belongs there but that's up to the consensus of other editors. I want you and others to understand how Silicon Slopes came to be and what it is apart of the marketing and hype. As of today, it's a lot of vacant real estate looking for tenants. KindHorta (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup, so if you think the article is sufficiently improved, you should !vote to withdraw your nomination so this debate can be closed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 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) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Rybalko

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Lithuania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject person fulfills WP:GNG with several Lithuanian sources that have provided SIGCOV (See Kauno diena[36] and 15min[37]). Her personal life has also received a certain extent of media coverage (See Lrytas.lt [38], 15min[39], and Delfi [40]).—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided in this discussion each provide the necessary WP:SIGCOV from RS to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article is in very poor condition (hence the weak—even though that's really a reason to improve vice delete), but the sources found are enough that WP:NEXIST to show she meets GNG vice NSKATE. -2pou (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin, Henry County, Indiana

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

Searches did not return any coverage of a settlement or community, and USGS topo maps do not show a community or even a name at this location. The GNIS entry lists its source as "Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana. Chicago: Baskin, Forster and Company, 1876. An extensively illustrated atlas which includes several U.S. and Indiana thematic and political maps, and maps of counties, towns and cities. The atlas also has many illustrations and portraits, patrons' and business directories, county histories and a U.S. Post Office list." As far as I can tell this was never anything more than a named point on the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable railroad waypoint, nothing more. The name "Corwin" does appear on USGS topo maps starting in 2010, which makes me think someone as USGS just blindly entered the term from GNIS, much like the creator of this article certainly did. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Henry county Indiana, has a few good sources that discuss it's place names EG[41] that don't mention this place, so why should it be mentioned here?James.folsom (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charissa Tansomboon

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Thailand. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is now a researcher in online learning, though I'm not seeing anything that would indicate notability under WP:NPROF. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find enough WP:SIGCOV from RS for this to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was trying to figure out what "platinum medalist" would be, as that sounded interesting, perhaps specific to Thailand... But no, turns out to be vandalism. The Skate Today piece referenced is good and dedicated to her, but it alone is not enough to meet GNG. -2pou (talk) 20:06, 20 May 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 Dutch Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Voll

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Netherlands. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Voll placed third at the senior national championships in 2008 and 2009, as evidenced by the references given. She placed 2nd at the 2007 senior national championships but I can´t find online the results of that competition. Anyhow, there is no doubt that Voll meets Wikipedia:NSKATE. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze and silver medals at the senior national championships explicitly do not meet the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right, I misread. Criteria are rather strict, I´d say. I´ll strike through my keep vote Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- she doesn't fulfill the criteria, especially in current state. if theres more to add to the article, someone should add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No sufficient sources found that meet GNG. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dutch Figure Skating Championships. Per ATD and CHEAP. Doesn't meet the guidelines. I did try to improve the article. Enos733, MaskedSinger, User:Bgsu98, and Ruud Buitelaar, can you all get behind this? gidonb (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a redirect. - Enos733 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Good solution Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Chernozubov

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

No sources and I have been unable to find any. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Russia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ck references on his article in ru.wp. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General who appears to have plenty of sourcing on Russian Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the awards he received, unless some wants to argue that the ru.wiki sources are not adequate. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can fix the articles and give citations to them, then they should stay. But I don't speak the language, and the current article dosen't cite any sources, and I couldn't find any.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NEXIST: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:23, 24 May 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!} 02:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Pennington

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Needs to be more here to pass WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 23 May 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. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Saucke-Lacelle

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator.Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [[42]] and [[43]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural~~ keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. within the past week) and fails to address GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Nicole Martins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:49, 20 May 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. Both sides bring up valid arguments. This type of discussion is probably better suited for an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or similar project page, with broader participation. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,

ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).

Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct issues here.

On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).

Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)

What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[44] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.

Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[45] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [46] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.

The explanation given by the ONS is:

"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."

Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.

The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.

The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.

Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
- Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
- For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [47] and [48] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
- The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [49] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
- If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
- The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Senft

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with [[50]] and [[51]]. Let'srun (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Excellent coverage in The Province and OK coverage in The Winnipeg Sun in the above links. The latter is much thinner and seems to slightly focus on her partner, but it does turn towards her later, so I lean to find that sufficient to show that enough WP:NEXISTs to meet GNG vice NSKATE, despite the dearth citations to RS in the article itself. -2pou (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Sylvester

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches and 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[52]] and [[53]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A comment to "procedural keep" is not an argument on why an article should be Kept. I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above. Hopefully someone takes the time to add them, but they have been verified to WP:NEXIST. -2pou (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 18 May 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 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Sok-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 20 May 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. The nominator needs to present a more compelling justification for deletion than that you couldn't find the sources online when you looked. Sources aren't required to be accessible online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre

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

A google search for the topic found only the website, a local guide, and user-generated information. Also I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online, and 6th source is trivial coverage. Therefore not notable. -- unsigned post by EternalNub

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Helping get rid of non-notable articles
Keep: I'd like to AGF that the offline sources are legit, in which case there is SIGCOV. Perhaps an editor with access the relevant archives can verify? -- D'n'B-t -- 10:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to locate one of them, so I'm more confident that the others are legit. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online" is not an acceptable argument for deletion; see WP:PAPERONLY, which says There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Restricting editors to using online sources would mean that most of the information in the world would be unavailable to us. Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa! According to its website, this is an amateur theatre company with 39 seats performing in a Victorian house. No stage productions are currently scheduled -- it appears mostly to screen movies. It serves dessert with its shows (if they ever have any) and supposedly won a non-notable amateur theatre award. The article notes that a non-notable playwright premiered a non-notable work there. No one involved in it is asserted to be notable. Assuming this is all true, why is this an encyclopedic topic? Its website says that its theatre is available for rental for weddings, parties and classes. This seems to be an extreme case of a run-of the mill community theatre company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it got coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 1999, and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Neither of those are local to Sacramento, so apparently it was a bigger deal in the past than it is today. Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Toughpigs correctly pointed out, sources being offline doesn't matter. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 17 May 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. Procedural Keep, no deletion rationale provided. "Feels like PROD" isn't a justified rationale to delete an article which should focus on notability and Wikipedia policies that aren't being met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hajizade

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete: Article is well written, however, feels like PROD--Correspondentman (talk) 06:36, 17 May 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 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Correspondentman: What does "feels like PROD" mean? Also, this article has already survived one deletion nomination – it's a good idea to summarize the previous consensus and give at least a brief argument against it. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa It seems that most of the users in the previous discussion are from Azerbaijan. A link to a website is like an advertisement. Correspondentman (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). Here is the discussion. He (User:Elshadiman) is banned on English Wikipedia too for sockpuppetry. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya, User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman, which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs, and this article was nominated and kept. — Toghrul R (t) 06:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment, you mixed something up Correspondentman (talk) 07:16, 18 May 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] Jack Raines,"Schrödinger's head of macro". sherwood.news. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

[2] "SGreenlight Capital's clash with an ex-employee has captivated the hedge-fund world". fnlondon.com. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

[3] Bradley Saacks,"David Einhorn was once the young thorn in the side of executives. Now he's dealing with his own". businessinsider.com. 17 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]