Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 08	July 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of Wonderful Pretty Cure! episodes[edit]

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

I'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. Some editors think this should be a standalone article, others think it should be a redirect to Wonderful Pretty Cure!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christnz1990 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, Lists, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the rationale for deletion here? A list of episodes is a very common page type for a TV show. Why would it need to be deleted? Toughpigs (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the BLAR edit summary of BaldiBasicsFan, 22 episodes is not enough; needs to be at least 50 or 60. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agee with @Toughpigs there should be no limit on episode numbers to create a new episode list I have seen shows that have less than 12 episode split into new pages. Anime9000 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:TVSPLIT. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVSPLIT was created in 22 Feb 2007 and the episode list for first Pretty Cure series was created in 22 Nov 2004 so there was no limit of episodes in order to put episodes into new page. I am sure older editors don't know this rule from MOS:TVSPLIT. Even some of the split the episodes list into new seasons pages with only 12 episode per page. Anime9000 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. I don't see a BLAR edit war here. There was one BLAR, it was reverted, and the article stabilized. In the future, should probably wait for multiple BLAR attempts before sending to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as redirect: I know that the Pretty Cure series has a bunch of episode lists, although not all of them follow the MOS:TVSPLIT guideline, and this article is no exception. May do something about these lists in the future but for now this should be a redirect. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So is the episode list going to be merged back onto the series page? I don't understand why this is being called a deletion or a redirect, rather than a merge. Toughpigs (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative title (publishing)[edit]

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

Duplicate topic of Subtitle (titling). — Moriwen (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Subtitle (titling) - the information in the 3rd paragraph is not in that article and it is a nice bit of book history. Also, a redirect from Alternate title to Subtitle would be useful. Lamona (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same thing as subtitling? This appears to me to be discussing a distinct if similar phenomenon. A merge might be OK anyway though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought, but the "OR" titles are covered in Subtitle (titling). I checked for definitions in "Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts : thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge University Press" (a key work on the various parts of books), but may have missed it because the index of that book is (ironically!) very bad. I did find one source in G books that makes the distinction between alternate and sub-title. The problem is that the Subtitle (titling) article would need to be re-written and that article is a mess and lacks sources. Maybe it's best to leave this one as is and consider it more authoritative than the sentences about "OR" titles in the Subtitle (titling) article. I'll think on that. Lamona (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona Fair enough, I support a merge. It seems a distinct though highly overlapping topic, so it's probably for the best. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After PARAKANYAA's comment I decided to reconsider. I conclude now that the Subtitle (titling) article is wrong to include alternate titles (especially to the extent that it does). I found additional sources for this article that define the difference between subtitles and alternate titles, but have not yet found any to verify the statement that use of alternate titles declined in the 19th century. I will keep looking for that. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestar[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) into University of Tennessee Medical Center. There is some coverage, for example this. Possibly not enough for NORG but that doesn't matter. As an improper SPINOUT of University of Tennessee Medical Center, a short article as well, it should be merged into its parent. Even if someone would prove that both articles are notable under NORG. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table (landform)[edit]

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

Although this is used in the name Table Mountain, I couldn't find reliable sources to show this as notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Move: It should be kept as it is an important category of landform. If kept, the name of this article needs to be changed to Tableland, which the proper terminology for this type of landform. Table is not the proper terminology and needs to be changed. Go see:

Migoń, P. and Duszyński, F., 2022. Landscapes and landforms in coarse clastic sedimentary tablelands–is there a unifying theme?. Catena, 218, no. 106545. open access Paul H. (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mesa, which even means "table". I'm not convinced this needs to be a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging with mesa is an incorrect, confusing, and scienfitically unjustifiable move as not all tablelands are mesas. Mesa is a subcatergory of tableland. They are not equivalent terms. This can be seen in the below open access paper in which mseas, buttes, and pinnacles are all considered to be types of "tablelands".

Migoń, P., Duszyński, F., Jancewicz, K. and Kotwicka, W., 2020. Late evolutionary stages of residual hills in tablelands (Elbsandsteingebirge, Germany). Geomorphology, 367, p.107308. open access Paul H. (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Tableland, which is clearly in the literature. The case for a separate article would be made by the sources in mesa, but I can't access those at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if a person does a Google scholar search for Migoń and tableland he or she gets 325 hits; for tableland and escarpment he or she gets 8,390 hits; and for geomorphology and tableland he or she gets 11,500 hits. A number of these papers have URLs for PDF files attached to them. Thus, there are plenty of accessiable potential sources that are currently available online and downable to be sources for an article. In addition, there exists online an abundance of public domain, open source digital elevation models, and georeferenced raster graphics of topographic maps and aerial photography to create figures from. Paul H. (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Cao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was previously deleted because the subject is non-notable and does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, this has not changed since and there has been no new coverage significant enough to make him notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was not notable a year ago; all that's changed since then is running for re-election. Frankly, the list of military medals isn't notable, but it makes up a good third of the article. The rest is a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion. The only thing that changed since then, winning a primary, does not confer notability (see Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes sense to have an article for Cao because he vastly overperformed against Wexton in ‘22 and he is now the nominee for Senate. Joe Kent of Washington, who is not a horribly notable figure has his own page and they both have somewhat similar political backgrounds.

NathanBru (talk)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems to meet WP:GNG§WP:SIGCOV guidelines through his major political party nomination in two national elections and the coverage of him in the interim with a decent amount of coverage in foreign media. WP:POLITICIAN reads "being...an unelected candidate for political office...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". WP:ROTM § Political candidates is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and even it does not preclude articles for non-incumbent candidates if GNG standards are met. — AjaxSmack 01:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While ROTM is not a policy or guideline, it gives the condition that The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is. So, not just meeting GNG for the election coverage itself like you seem to imply. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a US Senator candidate, covered in a lot of articles. Thus, saying that he is not well-known is a weak view. People may need to search for more details about him to have a better decision in the election or for other reasons. I think content about him as a politician will increase significantly in the near future. Given that he has some possibility to be a senator in the near future, deletion of his page at the moment is not a good choice. Zenms (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Fails on WP:NPOL as he hasn't been elected. Creator can draftify and if he gets elected can update (removing articles he wrote used as sources) and reinstate it Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOL reads any subject "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". That's the argument here. Falling back on a rote interpretation of WP:NPOL makes life easy (and I opposed this article in the previous AfD on that basis), but it is not a faithful interpretation of GNG which calls for "significant coverage". On the one hand, all 100 of Virginia's state delegates have articles pro forma, but by and large fail GNG (e.g. Barry Knight, Alex Askew) and on the other hand we have a subject here who is a far more significant political figure, has been a serious major party candidate twice (with coverage of his sometimes unusual statements and questionable actions in the interim) and has been the sole subject of numerous articles in national publications. — AjaxSmack 15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already said he doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:Don't bludgeon the process as you are doing on this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been very notable domestically, and I have seen a few sources internationally mentioning him as well. He made big headlines in 2022, and has been generating many large headlines from numerous large media corporations about his candidacy for US Senate. 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be redirected to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time based on our understanding of GNG, current political candidates, and WP:POLOUTCOMES "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged ... into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada." That said, I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely worth the effort to debate US Senatorial candidates who have won their major party's primary during the period between the primary and the general election. There are editors who suggest that just being a nominee is sufficient for an article, despite there being no policy or guideline asserting this view. So, at this point, I think it is better to use the editing process from keeping these articles from becoming repositories of campaign brochures (or a series of political statements or positions) and refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious about your opinion on a couple of points. Firstly, though "candidate...are not viewed as having presumptive notability", do you think a candidate can be notable on WP:SIGCOV merits on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, you say we should "refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until after the election", but I would argue that losing an election cannot remove notability; conversely if Hung Cao is going to be non-notable after losing, then he's not notable now either and the article should be deleted now per WP:NOTNEWS. Should articles be permitted to exist only for a campaign period? (I'm asking this seriously and not trying to be argumentative.) — AjaxSmack 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I do think that a candidate (who is not already notable) can pass WP:SIGCOV as a candidate, but in my mind this is a very high bar, usually with substantial international coverage (see Christine O'Donnell), but could be demonstrated in other ways, such as academic writings, notable documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I think that many political candidates are low profile individuals and the coverage they receive is for their participation in WP:BIO1E one event. As to the second question, my position is that it grows increasingly difficult to hold a AFD (in the US) the closer we get to election day, especially with US Senate candidates who are nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Because notability is not temporary, we should be careful with our assessment of notability, especially of political candidates who may not pass a ten-year test of significance and may quickly fade back to obscurity. All of this is why I think the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues. - Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I would also say that it is possible that a candidate that has a weak claim to pass GNG prior to the campaign could meet our notability standards with coverage of the campaign. But in this scenario, we would be looking for at least one substantive source prior to the candidate filing for office. - Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. I like your idea that "the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues". Many of those "articles" largely resemble machine-generated lists of figures. I agree that many losing candidates in single elections are like WP:BIO1E cases, but in this case you have a major-party candidate performing well in two different elections. There comes a point where something can render a candidate notable during or between campaigns, but I'm not quite sure where the line is. (In an extreme case, if a candidate shot an irate debate watcher during a campaign, it would make the candidate notable even if the shooting without that political context wasn't notable.) What bothers me is the lack of judgement that results in four-sentence (non-)articles for non-notable incumbents like this and this while suppressing articles on non-incumbents who have received widespread, sustained news coverage. I support general rules to control the number of articles, but there should be leeway for exceptions that rests on the spirit and not just the letter of these rules. — AjaxSmack 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Those incumbents are notable, though, though Will Davis is very hard to search for. They just have underdeveloped articles, and those articles may not ever be a featured article, but they don't fail GNG. Senate candidates face a massive recentism and a "you can't make yourself notable" problem, and at some point, we do keep failed perennial candidates. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, I was able to find several good sources about Rep. Davis. - Enos733 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  He simply has a very common name. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. I'm just not sure how Hung Cao doesn't meet GNG with the number and quality of citations already in the article. It contrasts starkly with Davis et al who would fail GNG in most other situations but who gets an ex officio a free pass by NPOL. — AjaxSmack 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are lots of material about elected federal and state legislators. And, there is an extensive public record of legislators votes and speeches. There is also some real-world considerations as well - as there is value to readers to know who is passing legislation. - Enos733 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as a viable alternative to outright deletion. Per nom. and others, currently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No prejudice against restoring the full article if he wins the general election or eventually gains enough RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. I would support a redirect as mentioned. Intothat darkness 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I would also be fine with a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive reliable sources. It's been the practice of Wikipedia to have articles for first-time US Senate candidates with a lot of reliable sources ever since 2020 when the AfD for Theresa Greenfield was overturned. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I wish I had seen that extensive AN discussion before. — AjaxSmack 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I really disagree with the belief that U.S. Senate nominees in competitive states should be considered automatically notable. They seem notable at the time, but if/when they lose, it becomes evident that they are not. I mean really, is anyone searching for Theresa Greenfield anymore? I don't think Hung Cao is notable enough outside of this election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the current election as a viable ATD or delete - being an unelected candidate anywhere does not guarantee notability, and keeping a page up in case an election is won violates our policy that once you're notable, you're always notable, as some !keep articles have mentioned. I also disagree there's any sort of an exception for American senate candidates as they can be adequately covered on the page for the election. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Olmstead[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Olmstead appeared in six games as a guard for Louisville in 1922 and 1923.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively (including searches in the Louisville newspaper) for SIGCOV without success. I did find and add the family's paid death notice (here), but such a notice lacks the required independence to contribute to notability. (As far as I can see, there is no obvious redirect target. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pro Football Archives and this source, the Olmstead who played for Louisville was actually named Larry. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No SIGCOV under "Larry" either. Cbl62 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basic confirmation of his career on Pro Football Reference, but nothing beyond that that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Beyoğlu protests[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, non Wiki worthy news event only covered by Turkish media. Creator has a history of pro-Kurdish agenda editing and creation of articles generally negative of Turkey, and Turkish government. Ecrusized (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Israel–Hamas war protests: No lasting coverage. Aintabli (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One additional idea: This and the other related article could be merged to form Israel–Hamas war protests in Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This actually seems reasonable. Ilamxan (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles can not be merged to non-existent articles. Is there an alternative target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my original vote was to merge this page into an existing page. If no new pages may be created as the result of an AfD discussion, the additional idea may just be taken as a future note. Aintabli (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dar[edit]

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

Can't find anything beyond a story in the wrap and a handbook by his organization (which has been deleted). Given the lack of an Israeli page, it seems Israeli sources are unlikely as well. One source is not enough for WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Might be notable, seems to be mentioned in a book: [1], but that is a tertiary source about it. Very brief mention here [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~Idealist.org~~ Action Without Borders -- which he founded, leads and for which he is known -- as a an unnecessary WP:SPINOFF/WP:CONTENTFORK, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Note the huge overlap. gidonb (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Content can't be merged to Idealist.org as this page is a redirect. Is there a different target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gill[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. The sole keep vote fails to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Čadež[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Slovenia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV coming up for the subject. (There is a Slovenian footballer with the same name, but not so many search results I couldn't sift through them.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 Intelligence Company[edit]

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

The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This unit is part of the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, part of the Canadian Intelligence Corps. Upmerge to Canadian Intelligence Corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.

It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should certainly be somewhere (here or merged). It's a reasonable search terms given the media reports of sexual assault - for example it's mentioned 7 times in this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So the only arguments being proposed here are Deletion or a Merge to Canadian Intelligence Corps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zaire (government in exile)[edit]

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

Do not meet with critera guideline. No centered sources before 2024 Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 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 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wheatley2 (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not having enough sources isn't a good reason to delete a page of an organization, especially since it attempted a coup against the DRC Government. If people want to learn about said coup they would also like to learn about the organization that did it, deleting this would not be helpful. Eehuiio (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about coup and organization are both sufficiant. Panam2014 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above, but only secondarily sourced prose and perhaps the image. The primary sourced prose seems OR, the infobox is entirely unhelpful, and the secondary sources while noting the topic do not show independent notability. The next step up to merge to is United Congolese Party. In the case this also shares similar notability issues, that could all be merged to Christian Malanga, but that may be a separate discussion. CMD (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are arguing for a Merge or a Redirect, please provide a link to the target article you are proposing so that editors don't have to go searching for it. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian Malanga: Any substantial sources about the subject are discussing Malanga rather than the party itself. United Congolese Party uses very weak sources. Recon rabbit 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete. It meets all notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F1A4:4A00:1102:5373:5075:6C13 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upwave[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:

This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g 🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Physicists of Macedonia[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taghnevan Harps[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage of this team. C 679 20:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Northern Ireland. C 679 20:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. I have added the only two sources I could find, which support the text, to the article. That there do not appear to be independent/reliable sources available to support even the basic facts in the text (formation date, current status, disestablishment?) suggests that SIGCOV is not met. Apart from northernirelandworld.com (a hyper-local online news sources which has perhaps a handful of match reports and other random mentions), the only coverage in "mainstream" news sources are these passing mentions in the Belfast Telegraph. Even if these two news articles dealt with the subject org as a primary topic (and they don't), it'd be difficult to argue that two (semi-regional) news articles amounted to significant coverage. That the article was created and expanded by clearly SPA/COI editors (seemingly as a form of NOTWEBHOST) is hard to overlook. Cannot support/advocate for retention. And cannot conceive of an appropriate WP:ATD. (Draft? To what end? Redirect? To where?). Hence: delete. Guliolopez (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous post. Hobby team. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serik Tolbassy[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability or SNG. All resume type material with promotional type wording, plus material on companies and organizations that he is affiliated with. Of the 4 references, one is a brief bio, 2 have just mentions of him at an event and one is a forbes listing of him being the 26th or 56th richest man in Kazakhstan. Tagged by others since January. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rudiments[edit]

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

I couldn't find convincing evidence they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. They have been with more than one record label, so there are several potential redirect targets, though I am not sure which would be preferable. I wouldn't propose a merge as there is no sourced information. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources, article does not have an encyclopedic tone. Also I couldn't find how they were notable for a Wikipedia article. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No strong sources, a conversational style, and no clear claim to fame for the band. Waqar💬 15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a case for WP:NBAND#5, but the search (which the above voters may or may not have conducted) came up a little light. One EP review in Maximum Rocknroll, two sizeable reviews by In Music We Trust as well as another good one by Allmusic. The band predates most of the current Internet Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Geschiste. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to what has been linked, there is another review by AllMusic. toweli (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey[edit]

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

I had an undisclosed conflict of interest when I created this article. My supervisor has asked me to request that the article be deleted on this basis. I am sorry I created it. I hope this process will be simple. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Assange[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Any coverage of her that would be used to establish notability is only in the context of her relationship with Julian Assange, including the sourcing currently in the article. She is not independently notable. Longhornsg (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Spain, and Sweden. Longhornsg (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stella Assange just spent the last 13 years of her life securing Julian Assange's freedom. This represents a significant legal victory, and indeed, would be considered a considerable career achievement for any attorney. The fact that she is also Julian's wife does not detract from the significance or notability of this accomplishment. Were Stella only Julian's wife and not his attorney, I'd agree that she's not independently notable. However, her legal accomplishment is what makes her notable, rather than her marital status. If you were to strip away the fact that she's Assange's wife, then it seems you'd have to admit that her legal accomplishments and advocacy make her notable. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is strictly sourced to Julian Assange articles, or to stories about their family. I don't see notability outside of the Julian Assange connection, so nothing needing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A factual article about a notable woman. Published author. Sourced and referenced. Wikipedia stop eating your tail and deleting good encyclopaedic content. Firefishy (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are third party and reliable. Her work is source checked and notable. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well referenced, enough to pass the WP:SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the keep votes substantively address that the coverage of Stella Assange is not independently but due to her relationship with Julian Assange. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Keep vote certainly does. You emphasize "her relationship" while failing to acknowledge that the aforementioned relationship is one of attorney-client. She has won a significant victory in helping Julian Assange gain his freedom. The press has treated this as a historic event. You act like she did no work to win this battle and is merely garnering attention because she is the spouse of someone famous. This page has nearly 700,000 views. It should not be deleted. People want information on this attorney. Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are certainly articles where she is the primary focus, rather than Julian Assange, so she may not fail on WP:ANYBIO. Also, I buy the argument that she is a lawyer and author. Agreed, the subject of her work is primarily a well-known guy who happens to be her husband, but this doesn't negate her work. Even without this, she might pass under the description of WP:NOTINHERITED where it says, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG., based on previous observation that there are articles specifically about her. David Malone (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not an expert on wikilawyering, but the article appears to add nothing to the Julian Assange article (his legal fight and personal life). BorisG (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on Stella Assange. It is a biography that contains information on her early life and education (in addition to her career). Though there is some overlap between this article and the article on Julian Assange, you would anticipate such an overlap between any two biographies on closely related people. Nevertheless, there is indeed additional information in this article about Stella Assange. You seem to have ignored this and fixated on Julian. Ben.Gowar (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, passes the GNG, there's clearly sources which focus on the subject herself: Stella Moris on her secret family with Julian Assange: ‘He’s unlike anyone I have ever met’ (The Guardian, 16 October 2021), Stella Assange calls on journalists to use FOI system to obtain details on WikiLeaks case (UPI, 27 June 2024). Second, acknowledging that part of the interest in the subject derives from her relationship with Julian Assange, that in itself is not reason not to have an article given the amount of detail on the subject of her role in the campaign to have Assange released, WP:OKFORK. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Robertson (musician)[edit]

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

This is a biography of a thirteen-year-old boy. The only claim to supposed notability (badly sourced) is that he won a prize in an obscure busking competition, about which the Australian media seems to say next to nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @AndyTheGrump: it is feeling to me like uncollegial WP:FOLLOWING - you took two articles that I started to AfD in the space of one day. This article has reliable sources which are non-trivial. 1, 2 I have no idea why you think that a fourteen year old cannot be notable. The Berkshire Eagle (Published daily since 1892) is clearly a reliable source so I removed your unreliable tags unless you can state why the source is unreliable. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth do you think that local media for Berkshire, Massachusetts would be reliable for content concerning obscure busking contests in Australia? They clearly aren't if they are claiming that this child won the event. He didn't. He won the 'primary' section: presumably for primary-school-age children. [3] I have no idea why you are trying to concoct 'notability' for a thirteen-or-fourteen-year-old busker, but it seems grossly inappropriate to me, given the questionable sourcing, the lack of evidence that the events he competed in are of any real significance, and the obvious privacy concerns in revealing personal details about a minor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources - I think this is clearly a notable guitar player/songwriter based on the RS. A reliable source can report on events from other places but I added sources that call out the same wins. I also reverted your removal of the win when he was ten, and added an additional source for it. \ Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Roberson doesn't come within a mile of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited even offer significant commentary on his performances. He's a kid who's won a couple of obscure prizes for kids, that's all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either SNG or GNG has to be met per our WP:N guide. The article has multiple non-trivial RS about the person so they meet GNG. There are no BLP or privacy concerns so the "think of the children" argument is a non-starter. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I want advice on WP:BLP, I'll ask for advice from someone who doesn't think that the name of a non-notable younger sister of a kid who's won a couple of kids' busking competition belongs in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly was name dropped in two publications, and one mentioned her as his roadie... but I did not contest your removal. FYI: it is normal to mention siblings and children in articles but I guess if you are adversarial you can find all sorts of threads to pull. I will move on after I finish adding archives so that others can read the non-trivial RS. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLPNAME, and the accompanying note 'e'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRS Guitars is one of the three major guitar manufacturing companies in the U.S. and in 2023 they named Noah Robertson as one of their artists. It is a big deal especially for someone so young. When I added the information, the nominator erased it twice calling it "promotional". And now the nominator threatens me with ANI if I restore it. So I have to leave now to avoid this unnecessary drama. Here is more drama about this subject. 1 Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD discussion. One where notability is demonstrated through significant coverage in independent sources. Which doesn't include guitar company websites plugging their own products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure winning junior music competitions are what we're looking for... "Congratulations to our Year 7 student Noah Robertson who won first place in the ... guitar gift pack and $500 Colemans Music voucher." This is not notable. I mean, the article has sourcing but winning a guitar and 500 bucks isn't what gets you a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:GNG provisions on sourcing are subject to a second test: whether the subject warrants a standalone page. A few policies bear on this to say no: (1) WP:BLP1E. The article uses newspaper sources to describe as notable for winning a (non-notable) busking competition, but since that's the limit of his notability (at the moment), that's one event and he should not have a page here. (2) The busking competition would fall under WP:NEVENTS, which appears to be covered in "the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers" per WP:ROUTINE. It's not notable, and even if it were, the notability does not transfer to its winner. And (3) we would want to rely on more than human interest reporting per WP:NEWSORG, which states that "[h]uman interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy." Bottom line: The subject may become notable in the future, but under these policies he is not right now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with no prejudice against draftifying it for the reasons outlined by Dclemens1971. TarnishedPath^talk 05:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks TarnishedPath for the draft idea. I would accept a draft or to have the article moved to my userspace. The AfD was canvassed at WPO so I have no confidence in the fairness of the AfD result. The AfD is also discussed at WP:ANI right now and that may allow others to arrive here in an unorganic way. Lightburst (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst, I only think possible draft because it is apparent that he might be attending some contest in Berkshire. Who knows what may come of that though. TarnishedPath^talk 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and if this does go to draft, I'd expect it to be submitted through AfC if/when editor/s felt it was ready for mainspace. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, I was aware that the article was being discussed at WP:ANI as that is how I found my way here. Although I might have found my way here anyway given it was included in the deletion sorting for Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the careful analysis of Dclemens1971. I also want to say that I resent Lightburst's preemptive strike above against "the fairness of the AfD result" and against commenters here as potentially "unorganic". Why couldn't people just as well have their attention drawn by WPO and/or ANI and then vote Keep? Way to assume bad faith. Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I am sure you have read about the low opinion of me and my work at WPO. It is not assuming bad faith to believe someone when they gin up the WPO regulars with anti-Lightburst rhetoric in a thread called...wait for it..."Crap articles". Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it seems that WPO has a bit of a broad audience and I don't think one could take a casual comment by a user of that website that they had started an AfD as an invitation to only those that would vote delete. TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTJUSTYET. There's no deadline, and chances look promising the subject will merit an article in the future. I would also echo Dclemens1971 spot on analysis and rationale. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is verging on WP:PRODIGY territory. I see no claim that he has reached adult levels of accomplishment, and winning a junior competition is not terribly remarkable. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spider-Man and X-Men[edit]

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

Could possibly redirect to Panini Comics, but I would be wary of a merge/redirect as this is unsourced. Sounds like it could be notable, but I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to confirm it. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stadionul Siderurgistul[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi @Boleyn, not sure if this is the right place to chat about this. I've added a few sources for the stadium and I believe it should be kept, as it's used by Liga IV and Liga III teams to play Cupa României matches, along other events as well. It's arguably the 2nd most used stadium in Galați. LaUr3nTiU (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen AG[edit]

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

DOesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some coverage:

100 years anniversary [4][5]
Mergers and acquisitions [6][7][8][9][10]
A visit to the company [11]
Coverage of their electricity production via PV panels [12]
Winners of the European Geothermal Innovation Award [13]
Two profiles on the St. Galler Tagblatt [14][15]

I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:ORG, @Boleyn: what do you think? If the company has been around for 100 years, probably more can be found. Broc (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Koukl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Greg Koukl

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

No evidence of notability, warning has been in place for over 7 years. I cannot find sources to indicate notability has been attained since the last nomination in 2011, which was closed as no consensus. glman (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Rather prolific author and is talked about a ton in the religious media, but a distinct lack of book reviews in "mainstream" media (for lack of a better word). This [16] review in religious media is typical... Some scattered mentions here [17] or [18]. We'd need more of these last two types of sources for this to have a chance to be notable here. Was hoping this would pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Christianity, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another reference which squeezes him over the line on WP:GNG. But the Google scholar citations are actually pretty good, including 98 for Tactics.

Andrey Vlasov (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. PROD removed by @Salvidrim!: with edit summary "Not eligible for PROD (previous 20180419 PROD deletion contested by recreation). must use an applicable CSD criteria or XFD > Undid revision 1233186368 by Shhhnotsoloud" but 20180419 was before this page was created at 20:39, 28 August 2018‎. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - @Shhhnotsoloud: yes the first revision of the current iteration of the page is 28 August 2018 but you can see it its deletion log at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Andrey_Vlasov_(disambiguation)&type=delete that a previous incarnation was deleted as an expired PROD 19 April 2018. Unfortunately per policy (WP:PRODNOM), a page is no longer eligible for PROD if it was nominated (deleted or not) via PROD previously. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Chhabra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. M S Hassan (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing, beyond this [19]... What's now in the article for sourcing isn't enough either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obersturmmann[edit]

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

Procedural nom; a malformed PROD with rationale This does not seem important enough to warrant its own page. Indeed, on the German language wiki, this information is merely included on the SA page. was removed. I don't see sufficient sourcing, but would not be surprised if sourcing exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Vaughan[edit]

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

So what exactly makes this guy notable? Being the son of Michael Vaughan, is all I can tell. He hasn't played cricket at a senior level and hasn't done anything of note in cricket to warrant inclusion. No amount of WP:ROUTINE refbombs can hide that he is a WP:GNG fail. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian fortress of Ponor[edit]

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

Ridiculously short article that fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. No hits of reliable sources on google books or search. No article in Romanian is a bad sign. Template:Dacian cities lists dozens of these ultra stubs, but I won't do anything with them until we see just one. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ro:Cetățile Ponorului is the Romanian-language article (or, at least, the only plausibly-notable topic of a similar name). Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a step towards salvaging the article, but the Romanian article also cites no sources, andseems to be about a cave rather than a fortress :( -1ctinus📝🗨 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "cave"/"ruined fortress" difference is somewhat concerning; but for a micro-stub like this it is easily dismissed as confusion by the enwiki article creator. As far as rowiki sourcing, there are some websites in the article (like [20]); it might not be enough to demonstrate notability but is enough to verify that something exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For all it's worth, that's not a cave, but rather, a ponor. Whence the name. Turgidson (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Geography, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice against recreation of a sourced version. It' shouldn't be AfD's job to research and write these articles; it should be the author's job. We are not losing anything by deleting these completely unverifiable articles, and we waste too much time on these. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Walsh90210 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keturi Brūkšniai[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG, sources inadequate for a main space page. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find referencing this book are things like book catalogues, so this does not pass GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Europa Flight 045[edit]

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

Failure to comply with WP:NOTABILITY. Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a similar incident that happened to LATAM Airlines Flight 800 in March 2024. 71.114.103.105 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate. To some extent we have to avoid make articles about events just because they're in the news, but some events are notable enough to warrant an article, such as an in-flight upset that injures over forty people. Poxy4 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and not just 40 injured but 10 being critically aswell. I've seen a few articles (which are now deleted) that from my perspective isn't notable, but people thinking this incident should be deleted is mind-boggling. 2605:8D80:400:9392:E4F1:C26C:D541:CCEA (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few people were injured doesn't make an article notable - these events are relatively common and there's no evidence of lasting coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40 people isn't a "few". 2605:8D80:400:9392:1D11:14AA:DB77:C88F (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, this deletion seems like a WP:RAPID move to me. Sufficient secondary sources do exist at the moment and serious injuries have also taken place: [21], [22], [23] and plenty more. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turbulence occurs in such a way that passengers are injured very frequently and it makes a news cycle. There's nothing to suggest this will be any more notable than any of those non-notable events. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a larger than normal number of people who have been injured. 65.132.132.162 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at LATAM Airlines Flight 800... Wonder what you'll say now huh. 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5DE:BDDD:4CB:2DBE (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Turbulence is such a regular occurrence in planes, but I'm assuming from the plane's flightpath, from it going from Spain to Uruguay which crosses the Equator. The "extreme turbulence" mentioned in the article might have been caused by the Equator's turbulence. A regular plane incident isn't worthy of Wikipedia standards.

|

Anybody who wants to know if the article is worthy of being an article should read WP:PLANECRASH. 71.223.74.246 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Said this like you've never did any research before, congrats. You didn't even acknowledge the amount of injuries and fatal injuries on this flight, take a look at LATAM Airlines Flight 800 and its the same exact incident. 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5DE:BDDD:4CB:2DBE (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of flights cross the equator every day that do not experience such severe turbulence. Also, most emergency flights do not have any injuries at all. If this is a "regular plane incident" then that's news to me. Poxy4 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by sources indicated above and by others per WP:NEXIST. While turbulence is common in aviation, 40 injured by turbulence not as much. gidonb (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the discussion, the IP user above gidnob's post appears to be a troll acting in similar patterns to other deletionist trolls, if someone could get a mod that would be great. 174.27.146.142 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself are using an IP aswell, you have no room to talk. Mad for what? 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5FE:E7B5:F498:F52C (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to fight back, just going to give you a reminder to stay civil, I have an account on my school laptop if that helps you, this is a discussion not an arguement. 174.27.146.142 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a "troll" so be careful what you say. 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5FE:E7B5:F498:F52C (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you all must, maybe next time start such a discussion under the comment that is relevant to that discussion? gidonb (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT #4. The comparison with LATAM Airlines Flight 800 is irrelevant: ~~firstly,~~ WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't determine the notability of this event~~, and in any case the fatality on LA800 and the procedural changes that resulted from the flight add notability that isn't present here~~. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about SQ321 since it had a fatality and resulted in procedural changes? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, confused those two – I've struck part of my comment accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Read articles and posts from the internet and people were being held up against the roof? I mean come on, you think this is common to you?? 2605:8D80:400:9392:798A:5167:ED51:6104 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you do some more research about this Air Europa incident because it clearly looks like you have not even tried to make an effort to. 10 people were badly injured and 30 others suffering other injuries. The connection between this and LATAM is relevant. The only difference was that this was due to bad turbulence. Would love to hear a reply from you because i seen you revert an edit from another article stating that this is a "run-of-the-mill"? Remember that 40+ including 10+(badly) were injured. 2605:8D80:400:9392:798A:5167:ED51:6104 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENTCRIT item 4 says Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The same applies to turbulence. This incident was more severe than average, sure, but it remains a run-of-the-mill event with no inherent notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Severe in-flight upset that resulted in 40 injuries and numerous hospitalizations. Has received significant media coverage and is thus notable enough to be included. As for WP:OSE, it would apply if these editors were saying "well if we delete this we have to delete the other one too," but that is not the case. Comparisons were drawn to LATAM 800 as a comparison. It too received significant media coverage and was deemed notable enough for an article. Perhaps you should review WP:ATAATA? Changing my vote to Delete, numerous editors have provided several sources and policies that apply almost perfectly to this article. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL It only makes sense for me to change my vote. I do think we should make a list of turbulence-related in-flight upsets that have resulted in injuries though, so as to emphasize their increasing occurrence.Poxy4 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If we delete this we have to delete the other one" is not what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. What it actually says is that the existence of an article about a similar topic cannot be used to justify a keep !vote (the case at hand), nor can the non-existence of a similar article be used to justify a delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent an hour reading your edit log and you seem to have always vote for delete. You seem to have huge hate for articles or something. 2605:8D80:400:9392:E4F1:C26C:D541:CCEA (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make arguments to the person. I'm sure this person is a levelheaded Wikipedian who simply doesn't have the same view of Wikipedia as us, which is totally fine and doesn't mean he "hates articles." Poxy4 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't "hate articles", it's just that I would rather see articles about notable topics and notable events. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the qualifying factors for notability is that the event receives significant media coverage, which it has. multiple editors have provided sources that cover the flight. I myself heard about the incident through the news and came to Wikipedia for more information. Isn't that what all good encyclopedias should do? Poxy4 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 2605:8D80:400:9392:50A9:33C8:C6C4:BDF4 (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, on reviewing OSE I have realized that that's pretty much what it says. However, the examples it gives are all two very different and unrelated articles, whereas LATAM800 and UX45 have undeniable similarities. We have decided that one is notable, so I believe this virtually identical incident is also notable. Poxy4 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not similar, and each article has to stand on its own merits. LATAM 800 was either an issue with the plane or a pilot error, which is unique. This is simply that a plane went through turbulence and people were injured, which happens relatively frequently. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40 injured doesn't "happen frequently". 2605:8D80:400:9392:1D11:14AA:DB77:C88F (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] How many of these flights have Wikipedia articles? SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This incident had more injuries and there were more damages to the aircraft than the Hawaiian incident. 2605:8D80:400:9392:50A9:33C8:C6C4:BDF4 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with our rules here on Wikipedia - we require sustained coverage for events, and considering how often events like this one occur, how rarely they have sustained coverage, and how there's not really any sustained coverage for this one - the vast majority of coverage is from the day of the event. SportingFlyer T·C 05:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am neither in favor or opposed to deletion. However, I advise the IP to let this discussion run its course and not treat it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Calling others "trolls" and alleging that users "hate articles" is not constructive and will not help your case. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Air Europa Flight 045 is an ongoing event. Like SQ 321 and LATAM Flight 800, this latest plane incident receives significant coverage in news networks such as CNN and BBC, and I'm not surprised there will be an investigation conducted on this matter. I also agree with GalacticOrbits opinion, in which they mentioned there are some serious injuries that have taken place as a result of plane turbulence. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The general notability guideline is partly based on how much coverage the event receives in the media. It's one of the reasons why the Disappearance of Jay Slater has an article and not a lot of other disappearances that have occured. UX45 has seen significant media coverage, which I think makes it notable. Poxy4 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something passes the WP:GNG does not mean we need to have an article on it, that is why we have WP:NOT. One of the specific parts of WP:NOT is WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy reports do not qualify for inclusion. For aviation events such as this one, sustained coverage is required. As I've noted above, most incidents of this type are not notable enough to receive a Wikipedia article, even though they make a full news cycle. While every article needs to be assessed on its own merits, I am not seeing anything which distinguishes this one from any of the other "injuries due to turbulence." But, regardless, just because the media writes about something doesn't mean we have to have an article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of emergency landings and in-flight turbulence events occur every week, but very few result in as much damage and injuries as this one. This has made a full news cycle and is still in the news several days later, which I think sets it apart from many other flights and warrants notability. Poxy4 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a Google News search, the event happened 4 days ago and there hasn't been an article written on the event in the past two days that was in the search. So I did a Bing news search, the only article written within the last 48 hours which came up was a Daily Mail piece, which clearly isn't notable. So I did a third news search, and again, nothing in the last two days. This doesn't have lasting notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst the event has received a lot of coverage, the fact that (major) coverage ended 2-3 days ago (constituting mostly of breaking news coverage), compared to SQ321 where coverage continued for at least two weeks, makes this event fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Around 65,000 aircrafts suffer turbulence in the US, and about 5,500 experience severe turbulence, so cases such as this would be considered run-of-the-mill.[29] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of the incidents result in injuries or are so shocking. One passenger was launched into an overhead bin and had to be pulled out by fellow passengers. That's not run-of-the-mill. Poxy4 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are multiple examples of severe turbulence, where numerous injuries, some severe, were recorded: Qatar Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, Lufthansa, United Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Aerolíneas Argentinas, KLM, [Delta Air Lines], JetBlue, Aeroflot, Transavia, [Air Canada]. In the past 40 years, turbulence has increased by 55% making events like this increasingly more common,[30] [31] which makes these events, more often than not, run-of-the-mill. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with the facts ig. Poxy4 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The incident had a lot of repercussion and still has a lot of attention in Brazil, as of writting this, a news featured the incident showing one of the videos in the aftermath. Iyusi766 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and the last news articles (in portuguese) covering this flight were published 4-5 days ago so I'm not sure about what news articles you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the day after the accident, so of course there isn't much. Ultimateyeetus (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight @Rosbif73 @Ultimateyeetus I'm talking about being featured in TV. It appeared in Fantástico, from TV Globo, on Sunday, and it explained a lot what happened, lile the fact why it took 2 hours~ for the ambulances to start helping the injured, and that the plane is still there, etc. In Jornal Nacional it was featured as well. Iyusi766 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 03:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Please offer arguments based in policy and sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This incident is similar to Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and just recieved about as much coverage. I understand that some people have been saying that this occurance is run-of-the-mill but there were 10 major injuries and 40 in total, not very common. Most of the cabin was destroyed unlike the hawaiian flight Sportingflyer sent. I have seen a lot of turbulence incidents but this specific one was the most that stuck out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:400:9392:C15F:4B19:511:5CED (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) This IP has already voted above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Brian Campbell (game designer)[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.

However, for Ratkin (1999), Umbra (2001) and Tribebook: Bone Gnawers (2001) Campbell is listed as sole author - that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC, no secondary coverage. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR either, only major work seems to be Victorian Age: Vampire. --Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Newimpartial, but failing that we could always merge or redirect to List of role-playing game designers. BOZ (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWAD-TV[edit]

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

This was marked as {{db-hoax}} by Myrabert01. Not sure whether it is a hoax or not, but it is certainly unsourced and was until recently about a different station of the same name. Expert attention needed to decide what should be done here. See also the talk page. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the (blocked) page creator's talk page and other contributions certainly makes "hoax" look very likely. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I see trouble ahead. The details in the infobox do not make sense to anyone who understands the history of All TV or ABS-CBN. Even if this wasn't a hoax, I'd have problems with sourcing and possible existence thereof. I am pinging one user whom I trust to have the final word: WayKurat. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert, then delete or redirect to a list of ABS-CBN transmitters. Even de-hoaxing it does not provide significant coverage to work from. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to older version This is the last stable version of this article, before it was bombarded with hoax information by several IP editors. Deleting this article should not be done since the hoax edits were just made last June 2024. -WayKurat (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tressless[edit]

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

All of the citations used in this article are either links to the forum itself, or trivial mentions of the form 'online forums like r/tressless' mentioned in articles about hair loss in general. This is not the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I have looked and I have not been able to find any sourcing that would meet our requirements. This was moved into article space by a draft's creator after the draft was declined, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty uncharitable. It was explained and linked to directly multiple times in both NBC and a *leading* paragraph in NYT, has been in print, and is not merely mentioned in passing as you claim. & don't know if it's against some guideline I didn't see, but the article was moved out of draft after addressing and improving based on feedback, not directly after being declined. Quarkipedia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NBC mentioned it twice. Here are the full quotes: Finasteride is also heavily touted on a popular website called Tressless, which is also an active community on Reddit. and CORRECTION: ( June 10, 2024, 8:10 p.m ET) An earlier version of this article misidentified the website Tressless. It is active on Reddit, but not a Reddit community.. The NY times is similar. That is a textbook example of a trivial mention. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "linked", it's used as a supporting citation in NBC further down the page. And it's the third sentence, and entire second paragraph in an NYT article, including print, it's not tucked into other text. But based on the consistent distortion in your comments today, indiscriminate deletions of useful but pedantically non-compliant text in other articles, and many complaints about you online, I'm guessing you know what you're doing, so ok. Quarkipedia (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether or not sources that contain significant independent coverage exist. Links are irrelevant to that. And making personal attacks is not going to help the situation - only providing sources that meet notability requirements will. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mougal[edit]

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

Unable to locate significant coverage of this individual's career. Made 2 substitute appearances for his national team (Seychelles) in 2008 - I am unable to locate any other information on him. Does not meet the GNG. C 679 15:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. C 679 15:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Greenfield tornado[edit]

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

This may be too early to do, but this is WP:TOOSOON. we still don't even know lots of the damage, and as usual this tornado has already been widely forgotten (from what I've seen on the news and other sources). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado for an example of this. While both tornadoes are barely comparable, this still has that same general precedent. The driving factor for this AfD is still the WP:TOOSOON, as we usually wait more than a month to make an article on a tornado.(And it wasn't even the deadliest tornado of the outbreak). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tornado is also notable for its DOW measurement, which has already been published in an academic setting. It's certainly important to the history of tornado research, and its death / injury toll was the highest since Rolling Fork. This tornado will almost certainly not be forgotten in the meteorological community on account of its damage and measured intensity, unlike Sulphur, as well as other EF4 tornadoes such as Barnsdall 2024 and Keota 2023. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 based on the theory that it was a conflation of unrelated events (including this one) that should be stand-alone articles. My views did not find consensus; I will abstain from voting here. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wasn't the deadliest but it definitely was the most infamous tornado of the sequence, arguably one of the most tornado of the 2020s, not to mention its record breaking DOW reading that (even though it lasted only a second) had recorded winds up to 300+ mph, so personally I think the article should remain Joner311 — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As people have said above, the DOW measurements of 300 mph winds, the death/injury toll + the damage is a good bit enough to justify an article. Poodle23 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – What happened to the full community consensus literally a couple days ago not to have an article? This article has plenty of issues still. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:2024_Greenfield_tornado --Wikiwillz (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the University of Illinois paper, which is academic evidence of an exact range for peak wind speeds, which dispels a lot of the original deletion discussion's points. We're well beyond the point of Twitter citations. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional publications were already out at the time of both deletion discussions. Anyone claiming it was twitter speculation was just not paying attention. Wikiwillz (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call that 'full community consensus'. At the time, the sources known to editors from June were the FARM team's Twitter post, and the NBC article. NBC stated 300+, and, while Wikipedia does allow Twitter in certain contexts, editors gravitated towards the NBC article's lack of a precise wind speed estimate. The University of Illinois paper is now a known reliable source with exact wind speed estimates (309-318). The other argument I saw was the article being short and having 'empty spaces', which I will concur on, but the main point from the original draft's lack of consensus has been resolved. As for notability, the paper states the estimate is one of only three above 300mph, alongside Bridge Creek-Moore 1999 and El Reno 2013. Both of those have articles, so notability shouldn't be an issue. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 06:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Sustainment Center[edit]

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

This article is a carbon copy of https://www.afsc.af.mil/About-Us/, which is in public domain, but retains tone issues. I do not believe there exists sufficient amount of information in independent sources to justify a article instead of a section in United States Air Force. My search in Google News is unfruitful, and while I did find some coverage in Google Scholar, they are either written or sponsored by the US Air force, like the RAND air force. , Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Aviation, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This content should not be removed as it is consistent with other Air Force organizations listed within Wikipedia. Additionally, the Air Force Sustainment Center is similar in content and tone as other centers listed under Air Force Materiel Command's Wikipedia page. Gradye80 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that other Air Force organizations are in a similar state as this article, citing only sources written by the air force and having promotional tone. They require improvement, and if insufficient independent sources exist, deletion as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently removed content that could be perceived of as having a promotional tone. The remaining content is matter of fact and relevant to Wikipedia users who may research USAF or other world-wide air forces. Gradye80 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Other pages exist isn't a great argument. If an article with an appropriate level of detail and neutrality is written, it can always go back in place of the redirect. tedder (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as consisting solely of primary sources and failing Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 Engineer Squadron[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. There is a lack of independent references provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any unit with a 113-year history is likely to be notable. Lack of independent references is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find independent sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one would expect for such an old unit, there's numerous references to the unit in the media throughout the wars. Even a 1946 book, and discussion in numerous other books about operations in both World Wars as they participated in battles like Vimy Ridge and on Juno Beach on D-Day. The German execution of three captured prisoners (2 from this unit) at the hands of Wilhelm Mohnke in 1944 gets media attention, such as ProQuest 239462705 and also discussed in a book.

Ali Maisam Nazary[edit]

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah[edit]

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

Non-notable Islamic high school. Not a full high school as it does not go beyond grade 10. The sources while numerous are mostly from non reliable sources and do not prove significant coverage needed for notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911 There are enough references to verify the article. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only run of the mill coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. --John B123 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar)[edit]

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

The sources do not show that the notability guidelines are being met. There are no significant claims to notability. The majority of the sources are from an online bookstore and obituaries. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911 There are references in Bengali and English language to verify the article. Most of the references are in Bengali, because he is a Bangladeshi man. And the book references given are his published books. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Huta Brzuska[edit]

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

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN (pdf, p. 340-341). I wasn't able to find any reliable informations about this battle or its importance, probably some minor clash, when to groups just fired at eachother. Of course OUN in his internal documents reported huge losses of the enemy, but as I said it's not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Munson[edit]

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

Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and the inclusion test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about their political impact -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
But this essentially just glancingly mentions that he served as mayor while primarily concentrating on background trivia about his childhood and educational background that has no bearing on notability at all, and it's referenced more than 50 per cent to the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, which is not a notability-building source -- and what's left for media coverage is entirely run of the mill short blurbs about his death itself, with absolutely no evidence shown of any at-the-time coverage of his work in politics.
Again, just minimally verifying that a mayor existed is not how you establish him as notable enough for a Wikipedia article: we need to see coverage and analysis about the impact of his work in politics, not just background biographical trivia about where he went to high school. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia[edit]

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Kopanki[edit]

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

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN: https://avr.org.ua/viewDoc/2785/. Author of the article also omitted massacre of Polish inhabitants of Kopanki that happened the day before on April 10. I think it's quite important context.

In general, there are no reliable information about described events, I wasn't able to find anything in avaiable monographies. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force[edit]

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

In Sri Lanka, the rank of Marshal of the Air Force is not notable, and only one person has got the rank, ~~the Sri Lankan TV media and newspapers do not have important news regarding the man who has been awarded with the rank~~. In the Wikipedia article, the rank insignia is British Royal Air Force's insignia. Hamwal (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air chief marshal#Sri Lanka. Mccapra (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roshan Goonetileke (the person who was awarded with the rank). 37.111.206.8 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article Roshan Goonetileke, Roshan Goonetileke - this man is notable for being the former Commander of the Sri Lanka Air Force and also he is notable on the history of civil war in Sri Lanka. 119.30.46.202 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Bajtoš[edit]

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

Another long-unsourced stub regarding a Slovak men's footballer who played a total of 47 minutes before suddenly disappearing in 1999. SME might be the best reliable secondary source that mentions his name, but it's only in an image caption which does not count towards significant coverage. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is from ye olden times and is not satisfactory with current guidelines. The false information about 47 minutes is a misinterpretation of 47 matches in the Czechoslovak First League, and he did of course have a longer career before and after that even though WorldFootball has not recorded it. But someone has to have recorded something in order to have a Wikipedia article. This piece is an overview of his career. It's a good start, and there are more in pre-Internet media, but I don't know how to find it. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That article linked by Geschichte appears in the Czech-language version of the page. It is a good start. The link from Clariniie suggests he played in European competitions in the 1994–95 season on top of the league matches. Sources likely exist. I was able to find details of his performances in the Czechoslovak First League: 1990–91 season, 1991–92 season (didn't play), 1992–93 season for 42 appearances and 6 goals. Will add more if I am unable to uncover further sources. C 679 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses[edit]

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK TTDI Jaya[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG.) The school already has an article in Malay Wikipedia so an English one would be unnecessary. N niyaz (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) Cavarrone 11:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Moore[edit]

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

Academic without a significant publication record or major awards. While he has written two textbooks, notability of them is unclear with only one review. In any case, even if the book is notable the author does not have to be. Page was moved to draft following NPR; editor rejected draftification and moved back to main without attempting to prove notability. Hence time for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject holds a named chair at Pomona College, but I am unconvinced that Pomona is a "major institution of higher education and research" in the sense of WP:NPROF C5. It is difficult to disambiguate this Thomas Moore from the many others of the same name for citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I forgot to add that point to the nomination, I should have. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific criteria notes at NPROF state that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Pomona is one of the most selective higher education institutions in the U.S., so it unambiguously meets that standard. Sdkb ^talk 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, NPROF is for impact in the larger field. The Pomona press release [32] certainly makes it sound like this endowed chair is essentially a high-powered university-wide teaching award. So I am unconvinced by NPROF C5. I will think about the NAUTHOR case you make below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press release focuses on teaching because Pomona is a liberal arts college and liberal arts colleges emphasize teaching over research. But authoring a popular textbook is certainly impact on the field (academia's bias toward research over pedagogy notwithstanding).

In any case, the NPROF C5 discussion is now moot given that the additional sources XOR'easter has found (two reviews of his other book in peer-reviewed academic journals, plus a fourth academic source with SIGCOV of Six Ideas) make the NAUTHOR case pretty unimpeachable. Sdkb ^talk 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are paths to notability both under WP:NPROF #5 and under WP:NAUTHOR #3, either one of which would be sufficient. For NPROF, he holds an endowed chair indicating a significant level of academic achievement, having previously been a full-tenured professor.^[1] For NAUTHOR — The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews — Moore is the author of Six Ideas that Shaped Physics, which has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals.^[2]^[3]^[4] Contrary to the nominator's assertion that I rejected draftification without attempting to prove notability, I communicated with them about NPROF and then more recently added the three reviews, which they may have missed in stating that there is only one review. Their comment that these would count only toward notability of the book and not Moore is a misunderstanding of NAUTHOR, per a plain reading of the guideline text. Sdkb ^talk 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reviews of a book can count towards the notability of an author (what else should an author be known for, other than their books? their stroganoff recipe?). However, authors are generally not seen as notable unless there are multiple reviews of multiple books apiece. An author with only one book is typically seen as a person known for only one thing, in which case it makes more sense to write an article about the book instead. There are exceptions, of course. Someone who writes a book that becomes one of the standard texts used in nearly every university course on a topic would be argued to meet WP:PROF#C4, even if none of their other accomplishments stand out. Jackson would be notable just for writing Jackson. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having done a literature search for substantial, reliably-published reviews of his textbooks, I believe that WP:AUTHOR is met. (In addition to the references I added, there is also [33], which I wasn't quite sure how to incorporate; it's more about the work that led up to the Six Ideas book than the book itself.) I don't think that Moore is at the level where the book is known by his last name, which roughly speaking is the kind of status that would meet WP:PROF#C4, and I have no opinion about the WP:PROF#C5 case, but neither of those is necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Thomsen, Marilyn (22 May 2024). "Faculty in Biology, History and Physics Named to Endowed Professorships". Pomona College. Retrieved 20 June 2024.
^ Joseph Amato (1996). "The Introductory Calculus‐Based Physics Textbook". Physics Today. 49 (12): 46–51. doi:10.1063/1.881581.
^ 李广平, 张立彬 (2012-03-20). "决定物理学发展的六大思想" [Six Ideas That Shaped Physics]. 大学物理 [College Physics] (in Chinese). 31 (3): 55. ISSN 1000-0712.
^ Bernatowicz, Thomas J. (2006-03-01). "Post-Use Review. Six Ideas That Shaped Physics (second edition, six volumes)." American Journal of Physics. 74 (3): 243–245. doi:10.1119/1.2149873. ISSN 0002-9505.

Keep, now the case has changed from WP:PROF#C5 to WP:AUTHOR I have no problem with retaining the page, given the sources that XOR'easter found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
Keep. WP:NAUTHOR case now looks reasonably solid, with two works that got multiple reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His "Six Ideas" textbook would make him notable [34] with it used to teach an introduction to physics. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joseph James Nantomah[edit]

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

Life coach, serial entrepreneur, but I don't see any significant independent coverage. The only articles I see are praising the guy's amazing skills in his voice. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to advertorial/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure this is Wikipedia material. There aren't any real news articles or anything - just self-promotion. Waqar💬 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have previously commented about policing of tone in sources from Africa and lack of WPBEFORE but I will assume good faith due to the plethora of interviews out there and give atleast reliable three sources that discusses the subject independently.
- Mojisoluwa, Felix Ayodele (16 January 2022). "Financial Literacy: Master Key To Gateway Of Financial Breakthroughs". New Telegraph. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
- Agbo, Juliana (13 July 2022). "THE GREAT MIGRATION: Exploring The Surge in Nigerians Moving Overseasin the Past Decade". Vanguard. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
- Ibeh, Ifeanyi (2 December 2020). "Joseph Nantomah's Journey: Poverty as a Catalyst for Financial Breakthrough". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 July 2024.

These three sources are not included in the article. Best, Reading Beans 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have independent coverage requirements to pass notability, and I don't see it on these sources. The links in the article, as well as the additional links suggested by @Reading Beans do read as if they were pulled by a self-penned biography package. If you look at the PM News article from a certain angle it looks like independent reporting, possibly just paraphrasing/rewriting but more of an editorial effort. Oblivy (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy, I usually and always disapprove of badgering of !votes but what is the proof of the non-independency of these sources? The tone? I just want to naively believe that it’s the tone. But is it? Best, Reading Beans 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way the articles just say things about him, often things that only he would know or which would be difficult to track down. And doing so without any of the the curiosity or skepticism or contextualization one might expect from an independent journalistic exercise. Oblivy (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound WP:OR but there are a lot, I mean, a lot interviews out there. Do you prefer I cite interviews (which I think is where these informations were actually gotten)? As I said earlier, we always make a mistake of judging sources from Africa with Western standards. Best, Reading Beans 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the information, I am from Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other sources that qualify for WP:GNG feel free to add them or cite them here. I had a look at each of the existing sources, plus the ones you selected above, and made my vote based on what I saw - a bunch of puff pieces and an article announcing he got an honorary degree from an unaccredited college. This has nothing to do with misapplying Western standards. Oblivy (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Norton[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I have checked the sources are most of them are primarily about the Australian Grains Genebank and small mentions of this person not meeting WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Gottfried[edit]

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

Another short compound given name article from the banned Neelix. Friedrich Bernhard Gottfried Nicolai obviously doesn't qualify, and there's no indication that Friedrich Gottfried Abel does either. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another example of Neelix trollery. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, undesirable namecruft failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We only have one article starting with Friedrich Gottfried Geschichte (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, random given/middle name combination that doesn't need to be indexed. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Adames[edit]

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

No evidence this actor passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Adames is a WP:BLP1E for his Razzie award. The article's earlier assertion (removed by me) that he is the youngest person to receive a Razzie is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH based on WP:SYNTH (none of the sources actually state that he was the youngest). There's no other claim to fame or notability; inclusion in other sources is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. There was a stable redirect to Gloria (1980 film) until recently; I would be OK with restoring the redirect per consensus or outright deleting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Looking at the rules you were right to remove the “youngest winner” assertion… thanks for pointing that out. As for the article I figured winning a Razzie, especially one of the first ever, qualified as a “significant event”. Kind of like how we have many stub articles for everyone who ever competed at the Olympics. So that was why I made it at the time JSwift49 01:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thinking: Under WP:NBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" is a criterion -- but the Razzies are really a tongue-in-cheek anti-honor. Most people who win them are already separately notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NENTERTAINER, but for those who aren't independently notable I don't think being recognized for being bad at something should qualify as "a significant award or honor." And so all the news coverage for this guy then falls under WP:BLP1E and should be covered at the movie's page, not as a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Olympian stubs, WP:NSPORT is its own separate thing, but at least all of them are being recognized for being good athletes. :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could being generally recognized for being bad be, as the criteria says, “interesting or unusual”, if not an honor :) If we had a source specifically confirming that Adams was the youngest recipient I would definitely advocate for the article to stay, as that’s an additional notability; the Razzies had a controversy recently for nominating children. But since we don’t have that source yet, I’m not too concerned either way. JSwift49 16:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Syrovatko[edit]

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

Does not meet verifiability guidelines per WP:SPORTSPERSON. 333fortheain (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not fail WP:V thanks to various databases, but an article cannot be built on databases only. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Pillarella[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Syria, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeX Foundry[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no reliable sources BoraVoro (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kneisly[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this American rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. My searches yielded only trivial mentions. A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads#United States. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 25 international appearances is quite notable plus I have been able to fine a few more sources [35][36][37][38]. Mn1548 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first three sources are from USARL, which is the competition the subject played in and thus not independent. The fourth source is a blog post with a passing mention of the subject, and thus is not reliable OR in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've seen similarly irrelevant sports players with articles about them. Maurnxiao (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article. JTtheOG (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From that website:

This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.

So unless I misinterpreted which is possible, is there any rush to get this article removed? Why not improve it? Maurnxiao (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. In this case, "speedily delete" refers to speedy deletion, a separate, much quicker procedure which does not need a discussion to delete a page. This rugby article is not eligible to be deleted through that medium. However, in my opinion, the subject has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that cover him directly and in detail and thus might fail our general notability guidelines, which is why I brought it to a discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States men nationa rugby league team#Current squad. Doesn't pass WP:RU/N, because on an inernational level, he played for United States men's national rugby league team (Eagles), but the player is presumed notable if he played for United States men's national rugby union team (Hawks). Per WP:RU/N USA domestic leagues aren't notable. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, I haven't found any secondary sources that relate directly to the subject. Tau Corvi (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the current squad so the redirect there would not be useful and only played one match at world cup, an alternative could be Colonial Cup (rugby league), but lack of significant coverage makes delete seem a reasonable option. EdwardUK (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divedapper[edit]

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

Draftification was undone so I'm bringing it to AfD. Both the sources used in the article and the sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder, with no sign of independent notability. In particular, WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources. I suggest a Merge or Redirect to Kaveh Akbar as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and United States of America. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that "sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder." Only three out of the eight sources are, and those are interviews with NPR, The Indianapolis Star, and a student newspaper of Butler University, each focused on a festival organized by Divedapper.

It is also incorrect that "WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources." In fact, all of the sources used are independent and third-party sources. None run afoul of WP:NIS. For them to be "primary sources," that would indicate that Divedapper owns or has financial or legal interests or ties to these sources. Nothing I find in my research suggests so.

Can the page Divedapper be improved upon? Absolutely. As can any other page. What has no basis in facts is the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If it does fail to meet any criteria, one would expect a proper notification to that effect. Instead, Broc commented out the magazine's logo and did not state that he did so in the Edit Summary, which I found suspect and led me to conclude some bad faith at work. I took a look at their Talk page and found that they had used such "unorthodox" --- their own words --- methods before and a User had complained about it. In that case, Broc moved an article to AfD; but when there was no consensus, Broc voted "Keep," and then draftified the article. A User described the move as "misleading." In response, Broc wrote: "I understand I might have bent the rules of the process a bit." If all editors bent Wikipedia rules at will, then the purpose of the site is defeated.

"Misleading" and "bending the rules of the process a bit" are descriptions I'd use for Broc as it concerns Divedapper. I'd very much prefer for things to be done in the right manner. I'd say "Keep." LityNerdyNerd (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent's Camp Resort[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable 12-cabin 'resort'. Sourcing is abysmal, and largely used for off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Wisconsin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize that the article was not developed. It is a 131 year old camp and there is enough information available to write an encyclopedic article like this source about the founder "Charle's Bent" who is not yet in this article 1. They have a history in the Wisconsin lumber industry and deer hunt and harvest. It looks like they were recently featured on the America's Best Restaurants Road Show 2. I also do not think there is anything in this article about their annual music event "Northwoodstock" 3. Probably more to be said about their annual "Radar run" event also 4 Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is a resort, should the relevant notability guidelines be WP:NORG? If so, it should probably be added to the appropriate delsort too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear whet the supposed claim to notability even is. As a former logging camp? A camping ground? A place that runs events? A place in the same county as alleged Bigfoot sightings? Hard to tell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to companies. The lead tells us it is a resort in Wisconsin. A resort is a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks, historically it is a place that has had the same name but its use has evolved over a century. Right now it is a campground that hosts major events and also has a lodge. When I went there last year I took photos of the music festival (on commons now) and I also wrote an article on the lake which separates the Wisc and MI (Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)). The photo in the Mamie Lake article is looking away from the lodge at Bent's Camp. I have been editing less these days but I hope to get around to developing the article if it is not deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these 'major events'? Where is the evidence that anyone not seeking to publicise them considers them 'major'. And how can a 12-cabin resort host 'major events' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am dancing as fast as I can. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is the 'major event' you are referring to? [39] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the sources in the article, Lightburst gives 3 above. The first is really about Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, but discusses Bent and does confirm that he created a fishing camp with log cabins and dining in 1896. However this is not signifcant coverage under any guideline. The mention of the camp is passing. The second link is not reliable in that it presents different information in different locations of the world. In any case it appears to be simply news about a restaurant (if you are an American consumer). The last link is an announcement. That is certainly a primary source. So we have nothing. No notability for a standalone article. Next question is whether a merge or redirect is appropriate. The most likely merge target is to the stub at Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). However I cannot see why that article subject is notable either, albeit that it would be considered under the much laxer WP:GEOLAND. I also considered redirect to Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, as this is what the source above is about. However it is not really Bent's Camp Resort that is discussed there. Rather, it is Bent who would be of sufficient note for a mention. At this point, I don't see any benefit in a redirect that outweighs the disbenefit of Wikipedia promotionally mentioning non notable businesses. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article; it’s an advertisement with footnotes. Qwirkle (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been canvassed offline by the nominator. It occurred on WPO in a thread titled "Crap Articles". The entry in that thread by the nominator says, "Bent's Camp Resort (T-H-L) Another masterpiece by Lightburst...". So it looks like this article will be deleted before I can add research about the history of the place; it would be nice to have this sent to draft or user space. If that cannot be done I understand. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Marie[edit]

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

Another bad, short compound given name list created by banned editor Neelix. The two articles, contrary to what it lists, are actually titled Julie Vinter Hansen and Julie Berman. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote as it was about an article at a different title with different contents, and the rationale no longer applies. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, undesirable namecruft failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We do have one non-redirect page starting with Julie Marie, Julie Marie Wade, as well as two hyphenated ones. Geschichte (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've replaced the two given/middle name entries with Julie-Marie Parmentier and Julie-Marie Strange, which do seem to be valid compound names. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping User:Geschichte and User:Walsh90210 if they'd like to reconsider their vote. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Sacre bleu (it), on top of zat, I ~~will create~~ have created Marie-Julie. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Charles[edit]

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

Neither of the two entries appears to qualify as a compound given name. The title of Publications by Rupert Hart-Davis, for example, suggests otherwise, and a book cited in that list is titled Rupert Hart-Davis, Man of Letters. As for Rupert Charles Barneby, the publications section of his article lists "Barneby, Rupert" repeatedly as author. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the creator of this list and ~~another~~ two others I have just nominated for Afd, User:Neelix, has been banned from editing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the unlikeliness of given/middle name indexes to be useful. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Lisbon[edit]

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

Embassies are not inherently notable. This has been marked for notability concerns, 3.5 years ago. The history section is not even about the embassy. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Indonesia, and Portugal. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The embassy itself is far from notable. Too many conflate "relations" pages with "embassy" pages. Geschichte (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shurtliffe[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Shurtliffe played 4 games for Buffalo in 1929.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively for SIGCOV without success. A redirect to 1929 Buffalo Bisons (NFL) season may be appropriate as an alternative to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, South Carolina, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus Consulting Group[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any references at all in the current state. Previously survived PROD in 2016, so bringing to AfD. Brandon (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington, D.C.. Brandon (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NCORP. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ADifferentMan. Non-notable company with no significant coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Sugiyama[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO/NAUTHOR - sourced to PR/puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the 4 sources in the current version are not reliable news agencies but are likely paid placement. He seems to have been involved with a blockchain project called SingularDAO; I don't see any good sources related to that either. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. I've tried a search on .jp websites and media, they are all promotional sites, or primary/his own website. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COPC Inc.[edit]

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

Company doesn't appear to meet the bar for notability under WP:NCORP, which is obscured by a large amount of low quality references. Brandon (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Brandon (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava New Generation-Day FM Festival[edit]

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

Not a notable music festival. Appears to have been a one-night, one-off event. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Slovakia. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kameraflage[edit]

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

Never a substantial business. There was minimal coverage of their (never-realized) launch promises (Engadget), but nothing substantial post-launch. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A patent and the Endgadget article are all there seems to be for coverage. Nohting found in media, what's used in the article for sourcing doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Thomsen, Marilyn (22 May 2024). "Faculty in Biology, History and Physics Named to Endowed Professorships". Pomona College. Retrieved 20 June 2024.

[2] Joseph Amato (1996). "The Introductory Calculus‐Based Physics Textbook". Physics Today. 49 (12): 46–51. doi:10.1063/1.881581.

[3] 李广平, 张立彬 (2012-03-20). "决定物理学发展的六大思想" [Six Ideas That Shaped Physics]. 大学物理 [College Physics] (in Chinese). 31 (3): 55. ISSN 1000-0712.

[4] Bernatowicz, Thomas J. (2006-03-01). "Post-Use Review. Six Ideas That Shaped Physics (second edition, six volumes)." American Journal of Physics. 74 (3): 243–245. doi:10.1119/1.2149873. ISSN 0002-9505.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]