Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 13	December 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candela Corp[edit]

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

Unsourced article; no sources found at all. Makes many claims, so too long to be bunkum, but we should discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the company was planning to go public, but in September 2022 withdrew its IPO. As a public company, we would have likely seen a stream of news about it. But by staying private, it remains in the shadows. Owen× ☎ 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the company had gone public, there would have been more sources to meet notability. I think it withdrew the IPO. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sreshth Movies[edit]

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

Film production company that has mentions of films it has produced or distributed, but nothing in-depth that satisfied WP:CORPDEPTH. Would recommend a merge as an WP:ATD but know it would likely be contested based on recent editing I have seen in Indian film-related pages so taking to AfD for editors to decide. CNMall41 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Dorosario[edit]

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

Not a notable athlete; never won a medal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Senegal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Thank you for bringing this up because it gives us an important opportunity to improve the article. I added a few cites to the article. Athlete was a two-time Olympian who set school records for the Malone Pioneers in the 1970s before becoming a United Nations official. Both of those are leads for someone looking for more cites. --Habst (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing beyond passing mentions in Newspapers.com (searching for just "Rosario" as well as "doRosario" and "do Rosario"). Being in the Olympics does not provide a presumption of coverage anymore.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for voting. From my experience, Newspapers.com generally focuses on American coverage and I don't think it would list any Senegalese coverage of Dorosario. I just updated the article to use clippings instead of WMF Library links for some existing sources. I think we ought to at least attempt to find coverage in his native country before deciding to delete, do you know of any ways we could do that? --Habst (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to do extensive searches for offline sources when we don't have a presumption that they exist. If we had other articles on Senegalese Olympians of similar achievement and from the same time period for whom someone had found SIGCOV in specific offline sources, we might be able to presume finding the same coverage for this subject if we had access to those sources. But per two global consensuses, we explicitly cannot just assume that any region or time period had a sufficient degree of Olympics coverage in RS without evidence. NSPORT also requires a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article for it to remain in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database listing	1. Evans, Hilary; Gjerde, Arild; Heijmans, Jeroen; Mallon, Bill; et al. "Christian Dorosario Olympic Results". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. Archived from the original on 18 April 2020. Retrieved 13 July 2017.
Single sentence mention	2. ^ "The Evening Independent". 19 July 1976. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
Name mentioned	3. ^ "The Evening Independent". 12 May 1975. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
Linkedin	4. ^ Christian Dorosario on LinkedIn
Name listed	5. ^ "United Nations Reform in Africa: "Delivering as One"". issuu. 10 April 2017.
Name mentioned	6. ^ "The Miami Herald". wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 1 December 2023.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to either delete or redirect. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postage (album)[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find any coverage on this album minus the Amplifier article in the references (which are broken) and said website seemed to be a now-defunct music shop/distributor, so I'm not particularly sure how much I'd consider that a reliable source; the only other mention of this album I've been able to find right now was in a list of their discography. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and New Zealand. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Supergroove: The Amplifier article (archived here) has a good bit to say on this album. I don't know enough about the site to judge whether it's reliable or not, but without any bylines and the likelihood that those articles are just unedited press releases, it doesn't look great. Regardless, it's not enough on its own, and I couldn't find anything else supporting notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know to what extent the following support keeping the article, but they are probably worth consideration for people making votes:

The album won an award for best album cover in New Zealand's major music awards event.
The "album debuted at number 10 on the New Zealand Album Chart, remaining in the Top 20 for four weeks, and the Top 50 for seven weeks going gold a week after release", as noted in the above-linked article (which is a press release, to be clear, though from the awards ceremony rather than directly from the band or label).
The New Zealand Herald gave it a 4-star review (with a byline!). --superioridad ^(discusión) 07:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after thinking some more about the info in my comment above. I say that an album with independent sources (a) that review it, (b) that verify that it is award-winning, and (c) that verify that it is gold-certified is a notable album, and notable enough to merit an article. I have also found three additional reviews that are not on the publicly searchable web, but that anyone with a relevant database subscription can confirm:

The Waikato Times, 30 October 2003. Within a music review column titled "The Wrap". Reviewer: Tracey Chapman. Verdict: 2/5.
The Southland Times, 25 October 2003. "Supergroove show huge talent". Reviewer: Phil McCarthy. No numerical verdict afaict; positive in tone.
New Zealand Truth, 31 October 2003. "Still just can't get enough of band called Supergroove". Reviewer: South Kristian. No numerical verdict afaict; positive in tone.

--superioridad ^(discusión) 04:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I'm inclined to being swayed by the reviews mentioned above. The charting positions should be possible to confirm independently of a press release. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the NZ music charts, a website of Recorded Music NZ has archives going back that far, and it gives these chart positions:

2-8 November 2003, No. 10
9-15 November 2003, No. 10
16-22 November 2003, No. 15
23-29 November 2003, No. 19
30 November-6 December 2003, No. 26
7-13 December 2003, No. 44
14-20 December 2003, No. 36

It is also marked as a Gold-certified album on those same pages. --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Dauchez[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. Only source in the article is an Olympedia source which is not in-depth coverage, and does not satisfy notability guidelines. A BEFORE search doesn't show anything promising either. Tails Wx 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, and France. Tails Wx 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it apears the person was of some notable in the early 20th century, the article exists in several languages but I do agree that more sources must be added and more that the article at its current state is poor. At its current state I think you're right. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Newspapers.com or ProQuest. We can't assume everyone got sustained SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery per WP:ATD if no further sources can be located - that would require a proper search of French newspapers of the period, which it appears has not so far taken place. Ingratis (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery as an ATD. Fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed database results, nothing that would indicate there is WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Boulton[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I don't see any independent sources with any significant depth. Daask (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZettaComposer: Courtesy ping as contributor to this article. Daask (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stated in this brief summary of me and my work that is untrue or misleading. I am not an actor. I am not a filmmaker, though I did produce and direct the Children of the Code documentary. I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this page? 2600:1700:9831:60B0:19D6:FBD8:3050:AF4B (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's sourced to your biography, so if anything is incorrect, I'd start there first. It's being looked at for deletion as we only have primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stated in this brief summary of me and my work that is untrue or misleading. I am not an actor. I am not a filmmaker, though I did produce and direct the Children of the Code documentary. I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this page? 2600:1700:9831:60B0:19D6:FBD8:3050:AF4B (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Daask:. IIRC I just passed through and gave it a quick cleanup while fixing underlinked tags. If there are no other independent sources to enhance the article and make it less self-promotional then I Support deletion. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am new to Wiki page procedures, may I request an extension of time to compile more independent resources. I am familiar with David Boulton and his work and feel confident we can update the page. David Boulton is currently ill with Covid and my correspondence with him is delayed. Is there a "specific" objection to any statements on the page or just a general lack of "independent sources with any significant depth" Kevin Kevin Manley (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to KEEP. Not sure any objections are clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Manley (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Several hits on the name that I find, none that seem to be about this individual however. We only have primary sourcing or non-RS now in the article, so not much for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: before search does not produce positive result to demonstrate notability. Search result brought up several different things not related to the information about the subject here. Metroick (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tapping. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pick tapping[edit]

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

I edited this article over a decade ago, and it has never been expanded. Highly doubtful that it would ever warrant enough material to go beyond stub class, as it is simply a minor offshoot of the regular tapping technique. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tapping: as a section, while contrasting the difference with two-handed tapping. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Operation London Cafe[edit]

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

Moved back to articlespace from draftspace by article creator. Draftify until release. DareshMohan (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify again and GREENLOCK for one month, or else we'll just be here again eight days from now. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bank of Scotland. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Finance[edit]

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

Article on a division of the Bank of Scotland is sourced to two non-RS. A BEFORE is somewhat difficult given the organization's common name but, insofar as I can tell, it has only a smattering of WP:ROUTINE coverage, plus press releases. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bank of Scotland: doesn't seem notable by itself, but verifiable information can be included as a short paragraph on the target. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of events commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the September 11 attacks[edit]

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

Almost no items in this list, and they aren't particuarly significant. I also don't believe that this is a notable list (ie people often refer to the list as a whole). —Panamitsu (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Terrorism, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable subject but still a listcruft. Orientls (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject is WP:LISTCRUFT with a lack of coverage covering these events as a group. Let'srun (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This would be LISTCRUFT if there was any sort of sourcing (or any sort of list). Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST for lack of sources that consider the concept as a group as opposed to individual events/items. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margherita d'Este[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Sourced entirely to one online genealogical self-published website. DrKay (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Italy. DrKay (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least there are sources. Some pages have no sources so I don’t understand why you’d put it up for deletion. YorkDr (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages have no sources See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Having other problematic pages is not a valid reason to keep another one that has issues of its own. Each article is evaluated based on its own merit. Also, lack of sources in an article is not necessarily equal to lack of notability, if one can demonstrate that significant coverage of the subject in secondary reliable sources does exist. This is what you should be doing with regards to this page. Keivan.f^Talk 14:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Sorry! I have tried to find details about her life both offline and online; however, I couldn't find any information. Nevertheless, if kept, Italian editors interested in history may come across sources. Therefore, I leave it for them. 1.47.128.24 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers. People in her position were public figures. The sourcing may not be great, but is enough to know she existed. Deletion serves no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. Notability is not inherited and nothing indicates this individual was notable in themselves or did anything of significance. The article is part genealogy (much of it unsourced) and part royaltycruft memorial. // Timothy :: talk 15:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mazi Melesa Pilip[edit]

The result was WP:SNOW keep. ~~No support for deletion or redirection, except one !vote citing no evidence other than "per nomination."~~ I had not seen Tbrechner's message, and had not noticed that WP:SNOW requires unanimity. I will be more careful in the future. (non-admin closure)‎ Luke10.27 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a local level officeholder, Pilip does not meet, or not meet, GNG or NPOL. However, the kinds of ways that one can meet GNG or NPOL as a local politician are not present here (e.g. longevity). As a candidate, it is too early to see if her candidacy meets NPOL based on its historic importance. Her military career does not meet GNG for military officers (e.g. flag officer or an IDF Medal of Honor-equivalent) Mpen320 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With her background, Ms. Pilip is certainly a person of note in the political world, including that she has just been tapped to run for the Congressional seat vacated by former Congressman George Santos. This on the same day that Mpen320 has written this request for deletion. Cecropia (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Yes, I wrote this after that announcement and would note that being a congressional candidate does not meet NPOL or GNG in of itself.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Ethiopia, Israel, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of the sources in the article, specifically the articles by Aish HaTorah ([1]) and The Forward ([2]), seems to indicate she meets WP:GNG. Additionally, I do not think WP:BLP1E applies here, as some of these sources which provide WP:SIGCOV are over two years old. Curbon7 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, I strongly disagree with any WP:CRYSTALBALL keep rationales regarding what coverage she could get in the future. We're discussing the sources that exist here-and-now. Curbon7 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aish article is written by a PR agency. Doesn't count towards notability from what I understand. The Forward is just routine coverage of a local election win. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the writer Kylie Ora Lobell does own a PR firm, the Aish article does not seem to be affiliated with that business; I note that writer is a contributor to a number of other Jewish publications ([3]) Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Pilip fails to meet WP:NPOL as a local non-major politician who has held office for not even two years. She has, however, received recent press coverage (Politico([4]), CNN([5]), Newsday([6]) as she has been nominated by the NY Republican Party to be their candidate in the NY-3 special election. The focus of these articles is not Melesa Pilip herself but is instead her relation to the NY-3 special election to replace former Congressman George Santos. Therefore, in this case, she does not have significant coverage; the election has significant coverage. The non-recent significant coverage cited by Curbon7 is valid, but I would argue that WP:BLP1E applies. As a result, she fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Melesa Pilip should be redirected to the 2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election page, which is now a heavily-related article to Melesa Pilip due to her recent nomination as the Republican candidate.Tbrechner (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She just received the party nomination for the open congressional seat in New York, which has received extensive national coverage. The race will be hotly contested and widely covered in the media as well. This should end this AfD discussion. It’s now obvious that this is a “Keep.” Go4thProsper (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: So far, the race and Melesa Pilip's nomination for the Republican ballot line in such race have received national coverage, but Melesa Pilip herself has not received unrelated national coverage outside of the past coverage cited by Curbon7, which meets the criteria of BLP1E as coverage solely about Melesa Pilip is in the context of her local election position; Melesa Pilip is currently a low-profile individual and is likely to continue to be if she loses the special election; and her previous national coverage is not substantial. Therefore, she fails to meet both Wikipedia:SIGCOV and Wikipedia:GNG. If you think she meets the general notability guidelines, please specify how because, currently, she does not seem to meet them. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree with Go4thProsper that this article should be kept. Mazi Melesa Pilip was elected to New York State's Nassau County Legislature representing Nassau County, Long Island's 10th district. This fact alone is notable and of interest to New Yorkers. Other county legislators for New York are in many articles on Wikipedia. If this article should be deleted then the other ones should too. I think that all articles identifying NYS County Legislators must be kept. You can't selectively keep some and not others. KhrisKerr (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to special election page per nomination. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems like enough material for a biography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7, I believe she meets WP:GNG. The Forward in 2021 and this, as well as more recent coverage: NYT here for example. --Deansfa (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, if routine coverage from ethnic media of a local election (like The Forward's coverage) met the standard for notability, we'd have articles on many local politicians but we don't because that doesn't meet the standard of notability. What you refer to as "this" is a piece written by a public relations professional that refers to the Nassau County Legislature as the NY Legislature. The NYT coverage is coverage of the 2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election which is where she should be covered until if and when she wins. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's always the same issue. we make some rules with very clear wording: "addresses the topic directly and in detail", "significant coverage in reliable sources", "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability". All of those very clear expressions are met with The Forward, The New York Times and others (I could have provided 10 more "addresses the topic directly" articles in NYT-like sources). but there's always someone who wants to add a "yes but". I looked if "routine news" coverage and "ethnic media" (sic) was a disqualifier, "routine news" is mentionned in the case of events, not people. "ethnic media" seems to be totally fabricated. --Deansfa (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dcpoliticaljunkie - your "coverage from ethnic media" disparagement of an RS is somewhat troubling. First, it is false to characterize her coverage as such - as you can see (if you do a wp:before type search), her coverage is broad nationally in the highest circulation publications in the US, and even extends to overseas. Second, you simply fabricate a rule of exclusion, that appears nowhere in WP rules. Third, while I am of course certain it is not what you meant, it does come across as statement that is perhaps just slightly repugnant. What's next? Delete all references from Black and Catholic and Armenian publications, or say that they do not count towards notability? Unsettling that your comment would be starting down this road.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:C4F:ED3C:CF8B:3CBB (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7 and Deansfa.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep on election outcome. For now: I believe that Pilip is unusually well-covered for a minor politician, enough so to meet the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. Notability would be solidified by being elected, because a person elected to US Congress is inherently notable for that reason. In the other case, from a future observer’s POV, a local politician with very brief national coverage who once ran for federal office and lost doesn’t really warrant an article (assuming there was nothing further of note). I agree with the “rising star” postulation per Hila Livne and Drsruli. It seems best in line with WP:CRYSTALBALL that we presume Pilip meets the notability threshold. We can’t just predict that Pilip will have been a “flash in the pan”. 2600:1700:FD0:E200:18FD:AC48:5F48:27A8 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, her background is inspiring and her political career is on the rise Hila Livne (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) * *[reply]

Reply: Respectfully, being inspiring and running for Congress does not alone meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. I appreciate your contribution, but please edit your contribution to be more specific. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons above PLUS she was just nominated to replace George Santos. Her star is rising. Drsruli (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I do not see how being nominated in a special election alone makes her article more in compliance with Wikipedia's standards for notability, and, respectfully, "[h]er star is rising" is not a valid justification for keeping this article. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilip has all the rights to remain on the Wikipedia page considering she's running for a congressional position which is New York's 3rd district for the United States House of Representatives. As an official Republican candidate for this position, people should know who she is, as such, the individual should remain on Wikipedia and this page should remain up. I have reason to believe there is no reason the page should be removed as she is a notable individual and should be treated as such considering her candidacy for a public office within the United States. SkyGamerOfficial (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Curbon7 and Deansfa. Pilip clearly meets GNG. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG for sure. Notable figure. GeorgeBailey (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. — Omegatron (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. [the italics are in the source, the bold is my accent]. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Even the coverage from the past month alone would meet GNG. Really, a borderline absurd nomination. Which is why the above !votes reflect that this should be a snow keep. The nomination is a waste of the community's time, and the nominator should consider the cost to the community the next time they fail to do a wp:before search focused on gng. That's assuming good faith .. and that the nom didn't just happen upon the article in the first place after seeing the robust news coverage on the subject this week. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C4F:ED3C:CF8B:3CBB (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say it’s too soon for snow SecretName101 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last dozen !votes since refs have been added have all been unanimously some version of Keep. Snow closes are for situations like this, to save community time. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4CBD:1DE:AA9E:9313 (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as just passing WP:GNG, largely for the article in The Forward - as the current coverage of her previous campaigns and policies as an elected official show that WP:BLP1E does not apply. In general candidates for the US Congress should be redirected to the page about the election, but each subject should be evaluated to see if they would pass GNG prior to their candidacy (or the coverage is well beyond that of the average candidate, such as internationalized coverage). As it stands, the subject does not pass WP:NPOL as the only metric for a clear pass of the SNG is holding a national or statewide elected position. Receiving a party nomination is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, nor is anyone entitled to a Wikipedia stand-alone page. (I have general thoughts here).--Enos733 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the essay-in-progress you linked. After quite the rabbit hole of reviewing candidate AfD outcomes, I'm withdrawing my redirect vote. I think filling out the essay a bit more and getting it included as a guideline in WP:AmPol would be quite useful. The Theresa Greenfield and Eliot Cutler examples are particularly insightful. Seems there's some precedent for keeping candidate articles if they've gotten enough coverage (a position that I actually prefer). Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a candidate for a federal office, she is notable not withstanding her previous accomplishments. Its not like we are running out of disk space. --rogerd (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N. Satyen[edit]

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

I wasn't able to establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple contributions as cinematographer to notable films (noted here, or here, for example) or in various books (see GB). These are passing mentions but they allow verification of his contributions. Keep. Worst case scenario, redirect to IIndian cinematographers-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Two sources in article are database listings, BEFORE showed nothign that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Qt (software)#Language bindings. as a viable ATD. A discussion on whether any material should be merged can be handled editorially and doesn't require a relist Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QtRuby[edit]

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

This article is primarily about the software library https://github.com/KDE/qtruby which has been dead since 2013, and secondarily about any Ruby bindings for Qt, which are all now dead. Wikipedia seems to generally be lenient in enforcing notability policy for open-source software projects, but notability isn't established by the currently-cited sources. A determined editor could probably dig up some ancient reviews in a WP:BEFORE search, but I'm content that Wikipedia is not lacking as an encyclopedia by not having this article. Daask (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near notable enough for an article. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: trimmed (2-3 sentences max len), properly sourced material into Qt (software)#Language bindings. As it stands this is an unnneeded CFORK, a proper merge will improve the target. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc.[edit]

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

Moved out of AfC by a (declared) paid editor. I have found no evidence of N:ORG or MEDRS level sourcing. Star Mississippi 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gnews is four pages of press releases, Gsearch is page after page of search results from their website. One heck of an active marketing team they have, but nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of press release, a search shows just press releases from google news and the article was created by an impatient Paid editor. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional, no indication of significance, founded in 2023 and just too soon. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Druță[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. That list should only be populated with people who are also notable, so if this person isn't notable, then having a redirect to that page doesn't make sense. Until such time that they are notable, anyway - which currently they are not. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ nomination withdrawn, as promised, because better sourcing has been found. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocník 21[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. This is of the "topic is a film that exists, the end" variety, and cites absolutely no reliable source coverage about the film to establish its notability, and it has existed in this state since 2011 without ever seeing a whit of improvement in over a decade -- and while there is an interlang to the Russian Wikipedia (though, strangely for a purportedly German film, none to the German Wikipedia), that article is longer but strictly single-sourced, so that source still wouldn't get this over WP:GNG all by itself.
As I can't read German or Czech, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to German or Czech language resources can actually find the sourcing needed to expand and salvage this, but just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Czech Republic, Germany, and Slovakia. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced the page with some of the numerous existing sources in various languages, including English, about this classic. (Very strong keep). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: @Bearcat: would you mind withdrawing your nomination then? We would save some time and I could move the page to Ročník 21. Thank you very much.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 4-8-4. Consensus not to retain but split between three options. I've picked this one as Owen references the target is mentioned at the destination, but any editor can either re-target the redirect or merge the content elsewhere if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10[edit]

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

Two sources and lacks notability.

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge pertinent information into Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway would be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The sourced information comes from either a blog or a book that may have been self-published, making the content only questionably acceptable for merging. This is an unlikely and impractical candidate for redirecting, so no on that. There seems to be a general consensus that most train classes are notable in of themselves, but there is a lack of sourcing available on this class in particular that leads me to believe it does not clear GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4-8-4: where it is already mentioned. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Dhanaker[edit]

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

Non-notable Musician. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, India, and Delhi. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both references in the article, The Hindustan Times and Times Now News, are non-independent as they're mere interviews. Otherwise, no other sources found that are WP:NBASIC nor WP:MUSICBIO-worthy, both in English or Hindi languages. ~ Tails Wx 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails to satisfy WP:GNG since the references solely consist of interviews, and no sources aligning with the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO have been found. Dcotos (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slappy and the Stinkers[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. I cannot find any independent significant coverage of this movie. (Article was deleted in 2008 by WP:PROD.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, and my thanks to the editor(s) who added the refs to the article. My before obviously fell short in this case. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Was reviewed in the New York Times, in Variety, in TV guide, by Roger Ebert, etc! Sources about production and release abound. So Strong Keep.. ~~Will~~ add(ed) those sources to the page but a withdrawal of this nomination would be appreciated and save other contributors' time, I should think. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NFO #1, two nationally known critics, Ebert and Van Gelder. Agree with @Mushy Yank this AfD is a time-waster. Oblivy (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. As it turned out, the nomination was both sloppy and a stinker. (I gamble that you have some self-deprecating humor on this.) Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It would be great if sourced brought up in this discussion found their way into the article. Unfortunately, this often doesn't happen at AFDs. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel By Classic[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Sources seem to either be non-independent (from the schools) or be WP:CRYSTAL ("still has a long ways to go", source #4 says). A BEFORE check didn't come up with much else, just some routine game previews and recaps confirming there are some games by this title, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does appear to be some significant coverage in my mind, outside of just the schools and student papers.[7][8][9][10] -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an event game, not just a rivalry. Cmm3 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:SIGCOV provided by EarlAndrew. Flibirigit (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulike[edit]

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

Non-notable company of minor importance, sourced mostly if not exclusively to press releases and other primary/marketing outlets. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see nothing but company-issued press releases; no independent coverage. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you check on google search for Ulike, you will see tons of articles about Ulike from independent sources and these can be added to the wikipedia page... Secondly, why would all these hair removal companies be okay on Wikipedia (Candela Corp, Nad's, check Category:Hair removal) but not Ulike? Its level of importance is not less than those. Moreover, Candela Corp doesn't have "ONE" reference... what is going on with Wikipedia's lack of article consistency across the platform. If you are going to enforce these strict rules after I create an article, show that same passion for policy on other articles that seem to break rules. This is not right! More independent sources have been added to the article. Although I disagree, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- BeFriendlyGoodSir, I'm going to give you a minute to reconsider your rather ridiculous opening claim. The things you just added--well, more experienced editors will be able to judge them. You yourself should be able to judge whether this promotional piece is actual journalism (written by "...") or simply product placement. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies how about this one? BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you find an editorial statement on that website, or an "About Us" page that explains who or what they are? I can't, and it reads like advertising. Also, you removed that personal attack: good. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those, I've also nominated Candela for deletion, they look to have zero sourcing in the article. Nothing found otherwise either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources used in the article are green per source bot, rest are red or orange, so primary or semi-notable (press releases are primary sourcing). This is the best I can find [11], feels like PR. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I will remove every PR promotional source and start from scratch until I know there are no independent sources. Please give me some time to collect citations at which point I will accept deletion if it is truly appropriate. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps notable articles on the subject can only be found on China's search engine, Baidu. I do not have Baidu and I do not speak Chinese. If I can't find anything in a couple, proceed as you wish. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- tons of "independent" youtube videos on ulike, can any be used? BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is an encyclopedia: you should not be asking this. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead, delete this, I do not care. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company that does not show it importance of getting a page. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdip Ram Bungar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page has been declined on AfC, and deleted on AfD a few months ago and now recreated again. The politician is not notable and doesn't have a "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". BoraVoro (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Punjab, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – issues brought up in original AfD are not addressed in this new article. Dan • ✉ 21:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a chance to let others know why the page for Mayor Gurdip Bangar is important on Wikipedia.

His origin is from the Dalit caste, and he is the first from this community. This is his second term as mayor.

This page should be on Wikipedia because he is a symbol of confidence for Dalits. Dev Mahey (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, Source eval:

Comments	Source
Council page, not WP:IS	1. Mistry, Rahul. "The Mayor". Gravesham Borough Council. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
Routine mill news about election by council as deputy mayor.	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Singh, I P (16 May 2014). "Gravesham council, UK, gets first ravidassia deputy Mayor". The Times of India.
Does not mention subject, fails SIGCOV	3. ^ "'I can only say thanks to the NHS, you are our real heroes'". Kent Online. 12 May 2020.
Council page, not WP:IS	4. ^ "Councillor details - Cllr Gurdip Ram Bungar". democracy.gravesham.gov.uk. 28 September 2023.
Interview	5. ^ "New mayor 'humbled' by role". Kent Online. 17 May 2019.
Fails WP:IS, subject is associated with source	6. ^ "House of Mercy Gravesend - Home - News & Events". www.houseofmercygravesend.com.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mongolian films of 1936[edit]

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

Single-item list consisting of a poorly-sourced, non-notable film. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listed at Lists of Mongolian films, baffled why this would need to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard process here is that a country gets one base List of Mongolian films first, and separate lists by year get spun off only when the omnibus list has come to contain hundreds or thousands of films that need to be chunked out for size management purposes. The base list already exists, however, and it isn't nearly long enough yet to need splitouts. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mongolian films, per WP:ATD-R. BD2412 T 13:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. If you wish to pursue a Merge with another article, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Greatest Hits Radio[edit]

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

Fails NLIST. No WP:IS WP:RS showing this has been discussed as a group and list serves no CLN purpose. Unneeded CFORK of main article, which already contains an appropriate history.

The sourced entries here appear to be in Greatest Hits Radio so there is nothing to merge, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 11:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am unsure as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. It currently has 69 references, almost all of the from independent sources, and contains significant information which is not included in the station's history.Rillington (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most valid policy reason to keep a content fork such as this is WP:DIFFORK. In my opinion there are arguments for and against this being an acceptable DIFFORK. —siro χ o 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, History, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this duplicates information that already exists in the Greatest Hits Radio article for apparently no reason. Flip Format (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio station timelines include information such as station presenter changes which can only be collated within a station timeline. Therefore, this timeline provides information which is not contained within the station's article. Rillington (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greatest Hits Radio. Timelines can be useful, but I don't see a strong need for this to be separate from the main article. This is borderline as a WP:DIFFORK, but almost certainly should not be deleted outright. —siroχo 17:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is the equivalent of deleting as all the information contained would be lost, and here it would mean that significant levels of information contained within in it, and not available elsewhere, would disappear.Rillington (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greatest Hits Radio. There are timelines for many things but they have to meet GNG too for getting their own article. CharlesWain (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see the need to delete this article, nor to merge. It feels like change/an action for the sake of it. It was this particular article that I first came across and learnt about the history of Greatest Hits Radio, not from the main Greatest Hits Radio article itself so from personal experience, I know it does have its place. It is one of the articles that encouraged me to become a more active editor on Wikipedia (not just on this particular article, but on those regarding other topics)

I don't see how it fails NLIST - "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" The group is question is the history/origins, dating back over 30 years, of one of the largest radio networks, in terms of number of stations, geographical spread and audience size, in the UK. If that's not notable, what is?!

Regarding WP:IS/WP:RS, multiple independent and reliable references show that Ofcom has had to make decisions about whether to grant permission to/approve requests from the network over the years. Those decisions will have involved discussion and consultation regarding this group of information both to assess the state of the market/radio industry at that time, and what effects, negative or positive, granting/approving such requests would have on the market and the relevant audiences.

At least 5 different BBC stations have similar "Timeline of..." articles, despite also having History sections in their main articles. I do not object to that, nor has anyone else judging by the complete absence of deletion or merge requests identical to this in the Revision history pages. Why single out this particular Timeline article for deletion or merging?

The only change I'd be willing to support is trimming the History section on the main Greatest Hits Radio article, and maintaining the existing redirection for "Further Information" to this article. People who are primarily visiting the main GHR article for current/up-to-date information about the channel (presenters, radio frequencies/availability on platforms, list of local variations etc) will be able to access that while not having to scroll past as much historical information, but will also be able to easily access the further detail this Timeline article provides. Idontunderstandthesandstormmeme (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well sourced and passes WP:GNG. It's not like Greatest Hits Radio isn't a notable topic. This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Very detailed & well referenced with independent reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I personally think it's a little odd to have such a detailed timeline for a radio station; however, it is well-documented with reliable sources so I think it's worth keeping. I particularly object to the votes to merge it into the main article, as I think a timeline of this detail would be ill-suited for the history section of the article. Dan ● ✉ 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm closing this as a Soft Delete but the nominator is reminded that "Unsourced" is not a valid deletion rationale. Please include more information in your nomination statement that demonstrates you have done a thorough BEFORE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diario Democráticamente[edit]

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

Unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. Did you make sure to look for sources before nominating for deletion? Industrial Insect (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you make sure it is not a hoax? Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author has removed the invitation from his Talk page. Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, and Paraguay. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the best I was able to ascertain is that it probably exists. From that to notability is a long way. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omgili[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

By my before, fails WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A related AfD (same owner) is held on the following company: Webz.io. gidonb (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found for a search engine company, this [12] with the same name, I don't think it's the same company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mongolian films of 1938[edit]

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

Fails NLIST and CLN. Single entry list, entry is does not have an article. No sources showing this has been discussed as a group meeting NLIST, or has a nav purpose meeting CLN // Timothy :: talk 13:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – single entry list (as noted), already covered by Lists of Mongolian films (which should itself be changed from a list-of-lists to a regular list) Dan ● ✉ 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this one is even worse than the WP:Articles for deletion/List of Mongolian films of 1936 I just started. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listed at Lists of Mongolian films, baffled why this would need to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another venue for such material could be 1938 in Mongolia - neither it or the film in question have articles currently. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard process here is that a country gets one base List of Mongolian films first, and separate lists by year get spun off only when the omnibus list has come to contain hundreds or thousands of films that need to be chunked out for size management purposes. The base list already exists, however, and it isn't nearly long enough yet to need splitouts. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mongolian films, per WP:ATD-R. BD2412 T 13:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I agree with Geschichte here. We are considering deleting an article that other editors have created and worked on. There needs to be a thorough BEFORE done and a better deletion rationale that "Fails WP:GNG". If a BEFORE was done, than please include that information in your nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selin Köseoğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey. Kadı Message 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :@Kadı Quoting WP:CREATIVE 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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). I believe the person satisfies this with two separate works: Price of Passion and İkinci Bahar. Koseoglu's role is important in both works, and both works have received very significant press coverage. Gorkem80 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, the nomination does not address the state of the article in any way. Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, I didn't understand what you mean? Kadı Message 08:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you threw in a boilerplate reason for deletion without tying it to the article in any way. Geschichte (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. As a reminder, you can't toss in untagged articles into the middle of the discussion. They are not part of the original AFD nomination. Feel free to start up new AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Young Lions FC season[edit]

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

Way WP:TOOSOON, + WP:GNG fail. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Singapore. CptViraj (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: don't draftify. We need to discourage this type of wikisquatting on a likely future title to show up as the article creator. A stub is fine, but this isn't even that. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As Owen× said. Svartner (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a form of Wikipedia editing that should be promptly discouraged. The "article" is copied and pasted from 2023; all the transfers occurred in 2023. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Cruz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article literally had an AfD this year proving it wasn't notable, but I guess we have to do this a second time. The article's reception relies on particularly heavy WP:REFBOMBing, with one of the most content-full sources being a bachelor's thesis of dubious reliability. The majority of others are listicle type articles or trivial mentions in reviews of the game itself. There have not been any new sources made apparent since the previous AfD that prove Soma is a notable character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon review, Soma Cruz meets the criteria set forth by WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION with substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. His character has been the focus of detailed discussions by game developers and in the gaming press, addressing his design, narrative role, and the broader impact on the Castlevania series. These discussions extend beyond routine game coverage, contributing to a broader understanding of his significance in video game history. The character's influence is recognized by industry professionals, who even further affirm his notability. The available sources provide a solid foundation for a standalone article, ala compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. Let games begin!

PD Slessor (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PD Slessor: Given that the previous AfD months earlier found the precise opposite of this, that there were not in fact enough substantial secondary sources, what exactly are the WP:THREE best sources that prove this? Otherwise it amounts to a paragraph-long WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, red card. Let the games pause for a moment. This is all fine and dandy, but saying something is notable "because xyz" doesn't help. Please give extensive sources about this subject. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see that much has changed since last AfD in May; this is just name drops [13], this is a trivial paragraph [14] that mentions the character once. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - Nothing has changed in regards to sourcing and notability for the character since the previous AFD from earlier this year that resulted in a unanimous consensus that a stand alone page for the character was not appropriate. Discounting the copious amounts of in-game quotes being used as references, pretty much all of the coverage in reliable sources are just ridiculously trivial mentions, or cherry picked quotes from general reviews of the game/franchise that mention him, being used as a WP:REFBOMB to give the illusion of significant coverage. Given that the previous AFD was so recent, had a clear consensus, and that the sourcing issues brought up in that AFD were not fixed or addressed, this really should not have been restored as an article without some kind of discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect I'm afraid that my previous afd will be still the same, but weaker due to the article's improvement. It is shame that a user who worked really hard on the article that is not or almost passing the threshold. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate much work would be lost, but putting a lot of WP:HARDWORK into an article does not make it immune to deletion. The article was also purposely restored from a merge that recently happened, so there isn't really an excuse that "I didn't realize it may not be notable" either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last Afd was closed as merge, but I can't find any merge in the target (It was redirected 31 May 2023). Christian75 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect still not seeing WP:SIGCOV. Agree that people should discuss before trying to override a consensus. Consensus can change, but it's important to discuss. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. My thoughts generally align with Rorshacma's and Shooterwalker's above, and there is little for me to say that has already been said. I was quite surprised to see this character article recreated after a previous AfD when little new coverage seems to have appeared, and would agree that there is a lack of SIGCOV to support this character. The Night Watch (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I tried rearranging the reception to make it easier to understand again and I honestly don't notice the big problem. There are several articles dedicated to several parts of his character besides reviews such as his alternative portrayal as a villain, the potential media gives him if Netflix makes him a protagonist and comparisons between Soma and other video game characters that are main topic of the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In short, because the sources are either not significant coverage, or does nothing beyond plot summary. Take the sources regarding the animated series - it literally just sprang from an interviewer asking the producer if the character would appear in the series, to which a vague "I can't say anything, but I like the character" response was given. And that is the only one that come close to being a reliable source on the topic. The other sources given are nothing but things like "Top 5" lists in which a couple of sentences are devoted to saying "We think Soma should appear in the series", or the ScreenRant article that does nothing but summarize the plot of Aria of Sorrow, and then say "maybe it will be adapted to the animated series some day". This is simply not significant coverage that provides any analysis of the character at all, and a dozen such sources of similar quality simply does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." If those secondary sources are not significant, and only primary sources are, then we get to this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Mathur[edit]

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

Do not appear to be sufficient RS to show notability JMWt (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also may be worth stating that the person who created the page has been blocked as a sock. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and India. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage used for sourcing. The name is too common to pull up this individual, I tried adding "linux" to Gsearch using his name, still too much stuff comes up, unrelated to this person (or nothing at all in Gnews). Delete for lack of sourcing. Likely not notable as an individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Lake Ranchos, California[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. This location is a subdivision, not a community. The user who contested the PROD added a couple of references, which is appreciated, but these are just routine mentions of legal matters. The consensus on subdivisions and other informal settlements is that they are subject to WP:GNG, and that bar is not met in this case because the sources cited are routine and not in-depth, and GNIS (which was originally the only cited source) does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to AfD – definitely worth further discussion rather than simply PROD. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undeveloped land with a history of failed development plans does not meet guidelines, I can't see anything that indicates this is more than just that. NGEO points to GNG and this fails. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This locale lacks any significant notability whatsoever. TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vectra AI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Citation #3, #5, #6, and #8 (4 out of 9) are sources that are primary and not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This talks about the company [15] and a company discussion paper by PwC [16] Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various articles that are not PRs mentioning that the company found a vulnerability in Microsoft Teams [17] [18] [19] and an article on Nasdaq [20]GetMeTheMoon (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still feel this debate could do with a little bit more input to firm up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - my initial reaction was to argue for "keep" as the nomination is malformed. If four of the nine sources in the article aren't in-depth and independent, then that means 5 are. But looking at those remaining sources, 1 is not independent (company's former website), 2 looks in-depth and independent, 4 is not independent (paper produced by topic), 7 is a list, and 9 looks independent. So I think there's two good sources in the article. I don't think the sources brought up in the above discussion are all that great, a lot of quoting the company, but added together I think a somewhat-useful NPOV and V article can be created for our readers, per WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Rights Institute[edit]

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

It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Coverage is very scarce. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and California. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion (due to contested prod back in 2006 (!) ...)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article has existed since 2005 but till this moment has cited no single source to demonstrate notability. Searched for sources to support it and prevent its deletion but found nothing tangible. Metroick (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. This should have been deleted when nominated for speedy deletion in 2006 – an editor removed the G11 template without explanation and the article appears to have languished without sources or notability since then. Dan • ✉ 21:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see unanimous agreement that the definition of "conservative left" is unclear and the article shouldn't stay in its current form. The idea of a selective merge has not gained additional traction, so I see a rough consensus for deletion. ^Complex/_Rational 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative left[edit]

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

OR/SYNTH/possible POV fork. Sources are cited to biased publications (including, in one case, a Japanese source which refers to the magazine of an extremely minor HK party claiming to be "conservative left"). No evidence of use of the term in mainstream media, and the article text characterisation of the concept is also, well, questionably put. Fermiboson (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fermiboson (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search suggests that the term is used somewhat frequently, but there seems to be no consensus on what it means, and it's applied to all kinds of people and parties in various articles and op-eds. This needs some academic backing before it deserves an article. Cortador (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The idea of a ”conservative left” is impossible and receives no authoritative support from the scholarly literature on the topic. Trakking (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into Conservatism where some of the information already exists. I disagree that this is OR or SYNTH since at least one source (Kaufman, 2020) supports the basis of the article. However, there is not nearly enough scholarship on this phenomenon to support a stand-alone article, and Conservatism has better and better-sourced material. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any additional support for a possible selective Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a poor attempt at WP:SYNTH of a couple disparate ideas, none of which really hold water. I find it difficult to understand any of what the article is trying to say. I think a selective merge is unnecessary – the only interesting thing in this article is the citation to the Kaufman (2020) article. An author might consider throwing its thesis into the already-existing left-wing nationalism or liberal conservatism articles, but the text on this article is not worth salvaging. Dan • ✉ 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Lakes Estates, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous AfD. This location seems to be a subdivision; only passing mentions in ads and legal notices were found. No secondary coverage at all. Without legal recognition this site fails WP:GEOLAND and without secondary coverage it fails WP:GNG. This is another of the many low-effort stubs, sourced only to GNIS (which does not establish notability), created by the user Carlossuarez46 during a brief mass-creation spree in 2009. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. My search found nothing to establish notability. 2 government documents refer to Indian Lakes Estates as a "subdivision", confirming WeirdNAnnoyed's assessment: [21], [22]. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a third that says the same. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been deleted last time. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS record for this doesn't pass verification, and the only source for this is false. The record reads "Occidental College. Accessed from classic.oxy.edu on 15 December 2005". Noting that classic.oxy.edu just redirects to www.oxy.edu, if we go to http://classic.oxy.edu at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-12-15) there is not a mention of "Indian Lakes Estates" there. I have brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GNIS regurgitators. We seem to have a bunch of things that someone put into the GNIS saying them to be from Occidental College that fail verification against the WWW site that they are purported to come from.
Looking around, I find a commercial map from 1966 showing that this is the name of a small housing development which the map says is in Coarsegold, California, and that latter is the actual name of the place. Which agrees with where the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino seems to think that it itself is, despite what was argued in the prior AFD discussion.
Sadly, the prior AFD discussion also argued that this must be a distinct place because From Indian Lakes is named after it. But the source in that article itself says "in a small mountain community just outside Yosemite National Park", and doesn't actually support what our article says. Coarsegold, California is "a small mountain community just outside Yosemite National Park".
The penultimate nail in the coffin is that a Fresno State College document from 1972 by R. R. Mead turns up in a search, listing this as a subdivision of "Coarsegold South". This is exactly the "just suburban neighborhood" mentioned in the prior AFD discussion.
The final nail in the coffin is that the external hyperlink to Google in the prior AFD discussion turns up only a horse ranch in Nevada, an apartment block, and Pangong Tso (a lake in India!). Vague handwaves in the direction of Google are not citing sources.
It's incredibly tedious cleaning up GNIS mess at this level, especially in the wake of vague handwave zero research AFD discussion.
Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as additional sources verify this is a "real" unincorporated community near Coarsegold of 485 homes (2000 Fresno Bee article says 485; 2016 article says "about 500"). Newspapers.com finds coverage over the years about the Indian Lakes Estates water distribution system and concerns about sharing water and Road 417 with the Chukchansi casino. Pinging Uncle G for giving up too easily. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work you put into finding those news articles. At least now the article says something. Still, those references are just trivial news reports on mundane community matters that happen in every settlement of any size: Someone is worried about traffic. Not everyone wants the new business in town. None of it really describes the community in any meaningful sense. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial to you, perhaps, but significant enough to merit dedicated coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, and I would hardly call development of a casino next door as WP:ROUTINE. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies to current events and does not apply here. Maybe you've been staring at these @Carlossuarez46 stubs too much – happens to the best of us. I suggest slowing down and/or getting more cross-training in other parts of Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The development of a casino next door is most definately routine coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going to make it noted that this is not its own unincorporated community, but rather a neighborhood fully-within the Coarsegold CDP. Don't know if that makes it any less notable or not, but maybe the article for it could somehow be merged into the Coarsegold article, if so. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2003, Indian Lakes Estates was an unincorporated community per Fresno Bee. When did it become part of Coarsegold CDP? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this census map, Indian Lakes Estates does NOT appear to be part of Coarsegold CDP (14288), but rather, lying outside of it. (At first I thought it was considered part of T2775 or Picayune RNIA T2775 (and maybe it is)...but this map has all the streets of Indian Lakes Estates lying slightly outside of that, too (where all the letters are). @Uncle G Cielquiparle (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the coverage found and expansion work by Cielquiparle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- I am going to have to agree with WeirdNAnnoyed, the coverage found is either non-sigcov, or just news. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many towns and community articles on Wikipedia have information about their relations with local Native American tribes? Not many. It's a fairly unique story. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting rather than closing this as No consensus (yet). I do want to applaud editor participating in these location/place discussions whatever your stance is, you do much more research into the article subject than I see in most AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Coarsegold, California. I'm going to approach this from a ruthlessly logical perspective. Either this is what we colloquially know as a "subdivision" and it's part of another legally recognized sub-county-level place, such as Coarsegold and can be merged in part; or the term "subdivision" is being used by sources in a different way (perhaps as a stand-in for "administrative subdivision" or "political subdivision"?), and this is a legally recognized unincorporated community and should be kept by WP:POPULATED. —siro χ o 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Junction[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all nom doesn't offer a valid reason for deletion. As is well known the quality of the prose is irrelevant and if nom doesn't like it they're free to edit it, as are we all. Secondly, this org clearly meets the GNG, let alone NORG. Here are some sources: [23] [24] [25] [26]. Central and Adams (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe needs some updating. I've noted and sourced that founder Dr. Jeremy Reynalds died in 2018. I've also added that Joy Junction opened a thrift shop this year. Also added the 2023 Halloween “Trick-or-Treat So Others May Eat” event. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joker: Yurusarezaru Sōsakan[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 23:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FujiTV for now would have been warranted but in the light of the sources presented below by Dekimasu, keep..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC) (edited Dec. 5)[reply]
Keep as with other recent examples of this type of nomination; nationally-televised series with double-digit viewership percentages like this pass WP:NTVNATL and there is no evidence a WP:BEFORE check was performed in Japanese, which would have resulted in hits in Kinema Junpo, news sources like this and this, links to the novelization, etc. Dekimasuよ! 05:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per convincing sources provided by Dekimasu and in light of the nominator's failure to do a WP:BEFORE search in Japanese. I also see additional sources in Japanese but Dekimasu's sources mean this article already passes threshold for the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelitek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 05:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Technology, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator deleted a substantial amount of sourced (perhaps not pristinely-sourced, but sourced) content before then making this call for deletion. A scan of old newspaper archives does show about a half-dozen independently published stories that at least mention Intelitek, some in more than just passing detail. Seems that this article easily could be rescued, but as its creator, I hesitate to do so myself. Community consensus should prevail; but it just felt like this wasn't an objective nomination, initiated after nearly half the article had been gutted without any discussion. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Passing mentions and churnalism don't make notability. There's a strong possibility that UPE were involved which is why you get such coverage of non-notable subjects. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor is a WP:UPE as well. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-Free[edit]

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

A massive advertisement, tagged since 2016, with no reliable sources provided to support any claims. Made by two PR-editors. It currently doesn't meet WP:CORP and can hardly be fixed otherwise than recreated from scratch. VanoTheOldest (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. While the main company's business appears to have faded due to app stores dominating its market, and there is no clear indication of recent notable activity, there is a lot of coverage from the early 2000s. During that time, it was considered to be among the top three companies in the market. Some examples of non-trivial coverage:

https://www.comnews.ru/content/32946

https://www.forbes.ru/forbes/issue/2015-03/280917-troe-mobilnykh

https://www.cnews.ru/news/top/ifree_vyshel_v_kitaj --PaulT2022 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am saying this because even though a user tried to reduce the amount of promotional content earlier in it, this article has so few reliable sources to support many of the claims (there are only three citations seen in total). Also, four of the six sections are entirely unsourced. Hence, it gives deep concern about whether the information can be verified. ST7733B (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged for G11 speedy deletion, I'd not worry about it here until that gets solved. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko ^talk 19:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to lack independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the company. Failing WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG, and I've concerns about the promotional tone of this article that violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING,

PD Slessor (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of centenarians (military commanders and soldiers). Star Mississippi 15:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Private soldier of the German and Polish armies. Long and worthy of respect life. But I'm not sure if meets our notability requirements. According to this article when Józef Kos died at the age of 107, he was "only" the second oldest person in the voivodeship, not to mention a country. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poland. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of centenarians (military commanders and soldiers). Prior AfD in 2007 which I started was a snow keep but with everyone just repeatign that 'being 106 years old is sufficient to make someone notable'. Well, our standards have risen since, I am afraid, and we require significant coverage in RS. What we have instead is a bunch of obituaries in local news. No pl wiki article. The subject fails WP:NBIO. But we have a valid list he should be mentioned in and redirected there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K. Gary Sebelius[edit]

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; could be notable as a first gentleman of Kansas, but that's a stretch Snickers2686 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Kansas. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE, however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD, where he is already listed. User:Let'srun 01:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While magistrate judges are not inherently notable, Sebelius is, due to the combination of being a magistrate judge, having been First Gentleman and having been a failed federal district judge nominee. No one of those items may confer inherent notability, but all three of those in concert should and do. Jarvishunt (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:SIGCOV has the subject received? Just because he has all of those items to his name doesn't give notability on its own. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some WP:SIGCOV -- two citations from The New York Times, no less -- during the Brown v. Board of Education litigation. I'm certainly happy to add more -- there's absolutely other WP:SIGCOV as well, and we all can add it as part of a good faith effort to work to improve the article. One problem is that some of the WP:SIGCOV that Gary Sebelius has received is in articles that currently are behind newspaper paywalls. Jarvishunt (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Jarvishunt to the extent that multiple almost-but-not-quite inherently notable features can come together to lead to someone being notable themselves. Sebelius was the First Gentleman of a U.S. state (which comes with some notoriety/notability within that state), is the husband of a former U.S. cabinet official, is a magistrate judge, and was involved as a lawyer in the later stages of the famous Brown v. Board of Education case. I don't think any of those features standing alone would confer notability, but put together, he seems to have a close relationship to many clearly notable individuals and events, which I think pushes him just over the line to notability. SeenToBeDone (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adding on to the above, looking up Gary Sibelius on newspaper archive, he has received a non-trivial amount of coverage. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review sourcing added by Jarvishunt and SeenToBeDone's submission around notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Despite the various roles and associations mentioned, K. Gary Sebelius does not meet the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) as the coverage does not appear to be significant or in-depth. The positions held, such as magistrate judge and First Gentleman of Kansas, do not inherently confer notability (WP:INHERITORG), and the failed federal district judge nomination, while notable, does not by itself satisfy the criteria for a standalone biographical article. The subject's involvement in the Brown v. Board of Education litigation, although notable, is also not sufficient to establish notability without significant independent coverage (WP:SIGCOV). A redirect to a related topic where he is already mentioned may be appropriate.

PD Slessor (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. ahead of a merger to Kate Kallot when the latter is created. While there is consensus Amini isn't notable, this is the scenario for which draft space was indtended. Star Mississippi 15:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amini (startup)[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:GNG / WP:NCORP. Source analysis: 1) no sigcov, 2) at 7 sentences, is arguably not sigcov. "a spokesperson told SpaceNews" suggests not independent, 3) lots of quotes, press release tone, site is called "disrupt africa" which is a press release buzzword, so likely not independent, 4) 2 big quotes, plus "Kallot emphasized" x2, suggesting that at least 4 paragraphs are not independent, which is a big part of the article, 5) press release tone and lots of quotes, not independent, 6) only 1 paragraph of coverage of Amini so not sigcov. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Africa. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, btw, it may be speedily deleted. I've analyzed the sources, and they all seem to be passing mentions with no sign of significant coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this qualifies for WP:G11. The last sentence is promotional, but other than that the tone is acceptable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Startup is an African, female founded climate technology startup, I was able to find this which seems to pass SIGCOV, and because of the company, its founder was also named one of the top 100 most influential people by Time Magazine. (Perhaps a merge for a page about Kate Kallot). If this was an American company, I don't think it would be as notable, buts its not often we see companies from Kenya getting huge funding, for a very admirable and selfless cause. PD Slessor (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I voted, I would propose that Amini , appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies WP:ORG. The company has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as TechCrunch, Business Insider Africa, Time magazine, SpaceNews, Forbes Africa, and Space in Africa.

The references provided indicate that Amini has made notable contributions to addressing environmental data scarcity in Africa through innovative uses of AI and satellite technology.

The company's substantial investment rounds and the recognition of its founder, Kate Kallot, by Time magazine as one of the top 100 most influential people further establish its notability.
I think this article should be retained and can be improved by incorporating additional information and secondary sources. The subjects of this article are already represented. But will trust WP:CONSENSUS PD Slessor (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do a bolded keep !vote if you want. The article author can participate. Just a tip if you're going to start writing company articles: the notability requirements of WP:NCORP are much stricter than WP:NPOL, due to problems with companies buying articles (advertorials). –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to merge/redirect with Kate Kallot, a Kenyan woman who has notability requirements.
PD Slessor (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete WP:ORGTRIV meeting coverage in Wired but nowhere else Mach61 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I would rather create a stub about Kate Kallot, as she appears to be notable, and redirect the article there [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs)
Delete: It does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT, since RS coverage seems to be either press release copypasta or routine coverage of funding events. MarioGom (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appreciate the perspectives shared in this discussion and understand the concerns about the notability and tone of the article. I agree that maintaining Wikipedia's standards is paramount, and I am committed to addressing the issues raised. While some sources may have a press release tone, there are others like TechCrunch and Business Insider Africa, and Time magazine that provide significant, independent coverage of Amini's innovative work in environmental data and AI technology in Africa. I suggest that we consider the potential value of this article in representing diverse topics on Wikipedia, especially from regions and sectors that may not receive as much attention. The merge or redirect with Kate Kallot's page could be a constructive way to preserve the noteworthy aspects of Amini's story while maintaining Wikipedia's quality standards. I look forward to working collaboratively to improve the article and ensure it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion. PD Slessor (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its also worth noting that: This isn't a company offering a traditional service or selling products, they are an environmental data tech company working to solve the climate data gap in Kenya. PD Slessor (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant to the notability criteria: WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed this ("Amini utilizes AI and space technologies to work towards providing environmental insights that can enable economic opportunities for farmers and drive systemic change across Africa.") to this ("Amini utilizes AI and space technologies to provide environmental insights for farmers.") in the body of the article. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, this phrase needs to be toned down significantly from marketing-speak. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to coverage being WP:ROUTINE. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:NCORP.Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I see multiple editors with a desire to merge to an article that doesn't exist. Given the recency of this articles creation and that desire, I think incubation is the right ATD here. —siroχo 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or draftify per @Siroxo
Article had issues which certainly raise questions about bias that corrupted some of the writing. Seems the user who created the article had written some good pieces and then this article single handedly lead to their loss of rights. Unfortunately wikipedia is about the encyclopedic content, and AfD is not the users, but the content a user created. Also, to raise one point on that point @PD Slessor has only been a member since July, and while this article was most definitely a misnomer for multiple reasons, as stated by another Wikipedian on creators talk page, notable Kenyan people are in fact under-represented groups on Wikipedia.

But as it stands its still Draft or Delete. Cray04 (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. This AfD is part of a spree of unfounded nominations that started with moving G5 Entertainment to the draft space and, after it was put right back in its place, ended with nominating it. As noted also by others, on invalid grounds. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Entertainment[edit]

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

G5 Entertainment lacks independent, in-depth sources as required by WP:NCORP and WP:RS, with key references being from a financial analytical company, interviews, and heavily CEO-reliant Bloomberg articles. Moreover, the inclusion of interviews from PocketGamer and paid publication from Forbes Georgia is suggesting the page is not notable. 25lucky (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Sweden. CptViraj (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Umayyad campaigns in India. Star Mississippi 15:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Navsari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, which requires at least two RS with substantial coverage. This is a historical battle that occurred more than a thousand years ago. There are no sources for any detail of the battle, just cryptic mention in a single inscription in India. The existing coverage in Umayyad campaigns in India is quite enough. Kautilya3 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Asia, Pakistan, and India. Kautilya3 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Umayyad_campaigns_in_India. The details in this article are not present in the main article. It would probably be better to move the contents to the main article. killer bee  06:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Umayyad campaigns in India where the battle is already described. I don’t see anything to merge here. Mccapra (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide additional sources or evidence you have that could support the validity of the Battle of Navsari. This could include historical texts, archaeological findings, or other reliable sources that provide more detail about the battle and its participants. We will review these sources carefully and make a decision based on their reliability and relevance to the article. Thank you for your cooperation. Umarrizwan.ansari (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Read this discussion of similar case. We can't invent names for battles like "Battle of X" just because it happened at X. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Umayyad campaigns in India. We can't invent names for battles such as "Battle of X", just because it is happened at X. Significance of major events would be shadowed over comparatively less significant events where the authors of the sources don't address deeply about the topic. This event can be added to the above linked articles where similar events are addressed. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym? It is not even a reason for deletion this article just lacks some secondary sources Umarrizwan.ansari (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article with more sources and information so there is no need to delete this page Umarrizwan.ansari (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are outdated and unreliable. Moreover, you can't invent names for battles like "Battle of X" unless it is used by historians. Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I found that none of those sources mentions the Umayyad caliphate nor its commander. What you did is original research. Please read WP:NOR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [[Umayyad campaigns in India] -- I completely agree with ImperialAficionado's statement that we can't make up terms like this. The article as it stands appears to be a mixture of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to create a topic that is not directly mentioned in the underlying sources. It would be better to spend the energy improving the parent article (which could use some help). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to United States invasion of Panama with the history retained for a merger, if desired. Star Mississippi 15:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Purple Storm[edit]

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

Independent notability is questionable. Stub with no unique substantial content. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Panama, and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However I will copy the information over there unless there is any objection. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged with United_States_invasion_of_Panama instead of List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names. killer bee  06:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United_States_invasion_of_Panama. I think this is a better place for this article as Operation Just Cause also has a section there. I don't think it should be merged and redirected to List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names as suggested by Buckshot06. killer bee  06:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States invasion of Panama -- I don't see anything here to merge as the sources are primary and the subject is a minor part of the invasion. I think BLAR is the only reasonable action here. I agree with K6bee9 that the codenames article is a poor choice. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Panama women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoraidil Pérez[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions, pretty consistently (2004, 2007, 2015, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of remote companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reason for deletion unclear inclusion criteria for WP:NLIST especially when all companies moved to remote in 2020. Coincindentally, all of the sources are from 2020. previous discussion went against consensus by using presence of "remote work" keyword in 2+ sources to justify creating this unencyclopedic list . बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per बिनोद थारू. An unclear and unnecessary list. It will be quite difficult to expand/maintain this kind of a list. killer bee  04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit tricky. The title itself doesn't appear to meet SALAT, however in practice this list is limited to blue-linked companies with RS, so it does meet WP:SALAT at this time. Perhaps a better title is needed. I also think it might be worth removing the second paragraph ("Benefits of being fully remote are:...") as it doesn't seem necessary or NPOV for such a list. —siro χ o 04:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that it applies to all non-essential companies during the pandemic बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary & unable to be maintained or expanded/minimized. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmaintainable ephemeral attempt to grasp at a changing concept. Companies aren't remote or not. They exist on a continuum between 100% in an offices and buildings and 0% in an office (with no office). If we keep this list, we'll have to decide what to do about a company that has one boss and one admin who work together in one head-office house, but employ 100,000 people world-wide working from their homes. Is it truly remote? It does have an office and an office-worker! What actual ratio of home-workers to office-workers do you need to pass the threshold? In future, most companies are going to live somewhere along that continuum, and merely classifying one group based on their being at an extreme end is unhelpful to our readers, hard to do, likely to be wrong a lot of the time, or very subjective (because every source-writer will have a different threshold). And what are we going to do about all notable companies where no reliable source has actually assessed whether they're remote or not? All the sources that I checked treat remoteness as a novelty. It won't be a novelty for much longer, so the sourcing is going to dry up. Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria of the list is also dubious. Dympies (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Anatoly Klyan[edit]

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

This article is only notable for having a non-significant role (dead journalist) in a bigger event (2014 ukraine).

WP:BIO1E says:

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event

बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Russia, and Ukraine. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But this article, Death of Anatoly Klyan, is about the event, as recommended by WP:BIO1E. The event is clearly notable as evidenced in the article. Thincat (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You are saying 'Journalist Dying' is a major role in the event 'Death of Journalist', which is obvious an can be said about pretty much any WP:NOTNEWS topic. Also, from WP:EVENTCRIT:
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

All the sources in the article are from exactly June 30, 2014, so it has no lasting coverage. And like written above, deaths/crimes/political news are not notable "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO1E is already refuted above. And this article clearly passes WP:GNG. And his death isn't just one of those "most deaths" mentioned; it provoked a global response - from the Russian government and UNESCO. That, plus the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[...] the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article

The reporting was exactly during one day, June 30, 2014. No more articles after that. Saying "it helps the case" words things in a way as to not consider the other majority of WP:EVENTCRIT which it clearly fails. Namely:

1. Events are probably notable if they have ~~enduring historical significance~~ and meet the general notability guideline, or if ~~they have a significant lasting effect.~~
2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and ~~were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).~~
3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

Looking at things, not much "helps the case for an article", per WP:EVENTCRIT. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you're accusing ME of wikilawyering...

In any case, 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources is satisfied by the multitude of different RS cited for this article - from The Guardian to Al Jazeera. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying it meets a single point of WP:EVENTCRIT (as a journalist death covered by major outlets for one day) yet you haven't explained why that makes it also pass 1, 3, 4 (all requiring lasting coverage, which it obviously doesn't have). बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a biographical article, It is completely fine to keep the article under the present title and scope. Segaton (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.

It's not a biographical article

Then why is there a subheading called Personal life? बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with EVENTCRIT. MLee1957 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a rough consensus to Keep this article. While his death might have prompted the media coverage, in their stories about him, they seem to go into a review of his accomplishments that are reflected in the article so they weren't just "So and so has died" articles. As far as a Merge option goes, that possibility can be proposed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belal Jadallah[edit]

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

This article is only notable for having a non-significant role (dead journalist) in a bigger event (Gaza siege).

WP:BIO1E says:

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event

English Google turn 8 results, all of which were related to his death. Arabic google on translate turned 50 results (5 pages). Exactly all <2023 articles were on the level of A traffic accident in Jerusalem kills a 7-year-old girl or Video: Bayern Munich players speak Arabic: Franck Ribery and Manuel Neuer, presumably articles by him. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Israel, and Palestine. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Subject seems to have engaged in at least noteworthy activities even prior to his certainly noteworthy death. At worst, move to draft to provide additional time for research and expansion, with the understanding that there are likely to be non-English sources that require more time to assemble. BD2412 T 04:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just added his Google results (WP:BEFORE) in my nomination.
Do you still consider him "noteworthy" in light of the nil coverage of him both in English and Arabic? (barring his WP:1E accident) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  08:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! --Masssly (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Per Belal Jadallah, A Giant In Palestinian Journalism, Killed In Israeli Bombing In Gaza, Belal Jadallah, A Giant In Palestinian Journalism, Killed In Israeli Bombing In Gaza, Israel-Palestine war: 'Godfather' of Palestinian journalism Belal Jadallah killed in Israeli shelling. I would argue the individual is notable, even the Canadian mission made a post following his death, and his death could be argued is also notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E:
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event

All of those sources you gave are precisely about his death last week. बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jadallah has been described in RS as "the godfather of Palestinian journalism" and a "giant" in Palestinian journalism; he is notable for his journalism, not just his death. (Note: I created this article). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His career and influence in the field provide enough substance for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, given that his outsize impact/influence in his field is noted in sources. Jackie.salzinger (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively) into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where this journalist belongs yet isn't mentioned. All this as BIO1E. This destination is preferred over the List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war that comes with the article, because the list should be merged into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as well. Yet the list is also a valid destination, as right now it exists alongside. Maybe by current setup the article is too refined. It's possible. Both would be legitimate destinations. My recommendation holds unless RS/I/V previous coverage ON this journalist is found. Always hard to find ON journalists as blurred by materials BY a journalist. So just tag me if you have it. I apply exactly the same standards for all sides and sorts (i.e. including for Hamas "militants", which this journalist is not). gidonb (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Dupré[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines, or WP:CREATIVE. The sources I've found through searching and looking at the English, Arabic, and German wikis appear to mostly be commercial websites selling fonts (including his own), about the font rather than him, or dead and unarchived websites. The most promising site, the TDC's, seems to offer coverage for paying members. He seems to have won awards, but I can't find information about the notability of those awards.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding independent reliable sourcing on the web for this article. The improperly embedded links in the article are to sites selling the fonts, not a discussion of the fonts. The improperly embedded links to awards are dead. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. Clear consensus not to retain below (delete + merge), and probably a consensus to merge independent of delete !votes regardless of its preference as an ATD. The eventual redirect can be re-targetted to a different section within that article, or a different article, if so desired. Daniel (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Clarksville tornado[edit]

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

Not notable enough for standalone article, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT. Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado, which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even if you think it is a minor event, it had killed 6* people and counting. Even if it wasn’t an EF5 or even an EF4, it had done possibly permanent damage to the people of Clarksville, TN. Yes it wasn’t the 2013 el reno tornado but it doesn’t hurt anyone to have this article. It is better to inform people of events like such because events like the December 9th tornado will get covered by other big news like politics, then people forget. With an article about it that people can read, the reader can understand the devastation that the people that experienced the tornado had gone through. There is no harm by having its own article, it might help though. People reading the article could contribute to helping the communities hit by the tornado through donations and or by informing others. Once again, no harm is done by this article. It should not be deleted. EvanAndrews22 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it killed three people, not six. Two, even if it did permanent damage, it doesn't mean that it is notable. The rest of your statement reads off as WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I am just going to repeat what Reecey said and say that it was one of the strongest December tornadoes in recent years. While not THE strongest, it is still notable in its own right, being the strongest of one of the worst December outbreaks in recent years. You have provided no points except for the fact that El Reno is only notable for size, which it is not. You also fail to realize that the outbreak of which this occurred in was a one-in-a-million chance. I mean, some tornadoes took the same paths as the ones two years prior, which is remarkable, and can only really be compared to the Moore tornadoes and the Codell Tornadoes. I rest my case, this should not be deleted for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated by other people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this, but this article is NOT a stub, and you can tell that there is enough info for an entire article. It also was very long-lasting, being an hour long. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument of "Long lasting effect on a decent sized community" is easily disproven by the fact that the tornado destroyed 114 homes, heavily damaged 857 others, mostly in a town/city of over 160k people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 out of 160000 is a very small percentage. Even if we assume 10 people per household, that's still trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with that, it is a city of 160k, which is a more than decent sized community. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're tunnel-visioning on what you personally feel is notable. Tornadoes like this occur all the time. Check out Perryton, Matador, Amory, Sullivan, Winterset, Wynne, etc all from this year. None of these have articles for a reason. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but we can't use Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. ChessEric 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major event, and even if you don't live around here, it killed half of the people that were in this outbreak, and it was possibly a multi-vortex. If you want to use the "It was an EF3" argument, then we should also delete the El Reno tornado article. You see how unfair that is? I stand my case. Clarksville (and Hendersonville) deserve their own articles, separate from the current, very tiny, outbreak article. This is IP address user, signing off. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The El Reno tornado was particularly notable due to its large size, which is unique. A run-of-the-mill EF3 with three fatalities is not really notable. It doesn't work that way. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the storm doesn’t matter. The damage it caused does. By saying it doesn’t work that way is saying that those 6 people who died don’t matter as much as those who died in the el reno tornado EvanAndrews22 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. The size of the storm does matter. The EF3 damage was three or four very poorly built houses flattened and a strip mall destroyed. That itself is not grounds for an article. The rest of the article is refuting an argument I never made. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, It killed 3 people, and was an EF3. It was one of the steongest December tornadoes in recent years. The article shoudl be kept. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, this isn't proving it to be notable. Being "one of the strongest December tornadoes" is not grounds for an article. Three people is not grounds either. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial weather event. Under 10 people dying is rather routine for a weather event; to be blunt, we've had articles in AfD where more people were involved in a mass shooting in the USA and it's been deemed not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: The event was a low-end EF3 and was fairly tame. Dozens of other tornadoes even in the last couple of years are much more worthy of an article over this. The speed in which this article was written gives me sort of WP:HATSHOP vibes as well. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-Oaktree b & Wikiwillz — Would you both support a merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023? The AfD nominator also supports a merge into the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given it is substantially thinned down to increase readability. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023, now that the latter article is in mainspace. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023: we have more than enough sources to support verifiability for an expanded section in the target article. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky as an WP:ATD, non-notable event. Just because the tornado was an EF3 and killed three people doesn't mean it is notable. ~ Tails Wx 17:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado. Cwater1 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As article creator, I do think it passes WP:GNG, so deletion is out of the question. That said, while I am not opposed to merging, a merge will make the outbreak article…well, off-balanced, since the RPS (readable prose size) of the tornado article is actually larger than the entire outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (See new comment below relisting comment) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has no ground to support it. The section can be trimmed to make it readable. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is readable as is. It passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Your deletion reasonings was strictly based on casualties/impact, but that isn’t what makes an article notable. Sources do. That is why WP:NEXIST exists. The 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake survived AfD because it has multiple reliable sources. The state of the article (and overall impacts) weren’t that high…Yet it has the coverage, so it passes notability requirements. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the merge, which it seems you aren’t either. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large amount of these sources lack WP:DEPTH. The NWS survey is a routine survey done of every tornado that is reported to cause damage in the US. Several of the other sources are news articles that only say one point (e.g. that the tornado was an EF3). Cutlass ^Ciera 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lack to add Cutlass, that this is how a majority of tornado's are written. The NWS survey is the most official and comprehensive detail of damage and chronological impact. There's little need to scour for sources that would really have less detail or authority to the survey itself. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article passes WP:GNG, but the thing about general notability guidelines is that they're.. well... general. There are nuances to consider. I support a merger, sounds like the smart thing to do. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Now that an article for the outbreak has been created, there is no need for an individual article for this tornado. I support a merger. ChessEric 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ChessEric 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-We can summarize this in the outbreakn article. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Since a WP:SNOW, merge closure was overturned, I am going to double down on the keep. Passes WP:GNG, passes WP:NEVENT and while still a recent event a few days ago, the tornado still gets complete individual news articles about it ([28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]"Federal disaster declared after Clarksville tornado"), aka secondary RS coverage at least 5 days after the event, indicating WP:LASTING may be satisfied as it clearly isn't a true WP:NOTNEWS event. All original issues with the AfD all pass. In previous struck comment, I originally was ok with a merge, but given the merge overturning, I no longer support a merge. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the merge that was overturned in DRV. It was your blatantly inappropriate WP:INVOLVED attempt to prematurely shut down discussion here. Your renewed "double down" campaign smells of WP:SPITE. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:SPITE at all. I honestly don’t think it needs merged anymore, given the clear RS consensus that it wasn’t just a passing news event, meaning it passes all the requirements to be an article. Also, several editors suggested the discussion be quickly-closed by a countersigning admin. That never occurred, so yes, the merge was overturned, because that was an option suggested by some editors during the DRV. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "destroyed 114 homes, damaging 857 others", pretty notable. "claimed the lives of three people, including a child, and injured an additional 62 others." Notable - who on Wikipedia puts a number to "notable" when it comes to human life? — Maile (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in death count,but is in injury count. The only notable thing about it is that it damaged over 900 homes. EF3 tornadoes happen all the time, but other notable ones (Such as Amory or Little Rock). If this tornado has an article, a few others from this year should as well (Like the ones mentioned above). 72.46.58.62 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to put keep in the reply above. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – No reason for a standalone article. Can easily be included in main outbreak article. United States Man (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Would be consistent with past practice in the WikiProject. A standalone article just isn't justified, IMO. Penitentes (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not convinced this is WP:LASTING yet. We can always split the merge out to another article if we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We're doing this again? My position hasn't changed; this can fit in the main article without being split. ChessEric 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The summary actually isn't finished because the Kentucky part has not been put in yet, but I still lean merge. ChessEric 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not again; it's the same AfD, resuming after an out-of-process interruption. Please strike out one of your two !votes here. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...you talking about me? My other comment was a note, not a 2nd vote. Also, someone else relisted the AfD, not the original creator. ChessEric 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you have two bolded Merges. Please strike one. I relisted the AfD as a close of the DRV. It is the same discussion now being allowed to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate vote though and I don't understand why that matters. I'll do it though. ChessEric 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE and limited WP:EFFECT or WP:DEPTH. All sources in article are either NOAA or WP:PRIMARYNEWS. No reason for a standalone article to exist. Note for closer: If merge is unsuccessful, please consider my !vote for deletion as not independently notable under WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — it is not surprising that there are numerous reliable sources covering the Clarksville tornado. However, I don't think that notability independent of the broader severe weather event has been established, namely in terms of diverse coverage (beyond human interest stories and what-was-hit overviews) and in-depth coverage (beyond just narrative from local news). —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As unnecessary CFORK, can be squeezed into the December 9-10 article and still adhere to SIZERULE. Btw the DRV was wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.123.49.55 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:CFORK is not an issue as the section in the outbreak article is 138 words while the article has a readable prose size of 1,278 words. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this topic can sufficiently be covered in Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023. There is not enough WP:LASTING impact from this tornado to warrant a standalone page. Recreating a standalone article can be revisited in the event there is more lasting impact down the road. Frank Anchor 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not sure why this discussion is reopened, but this article is not notable enough nor WP:LASTING enough. Most of the information is just WP:TOOMUCH or information no one cares about with means to beef up an article of a weak tornado that caused small pockets of EF3 damage in an average path. With this being said, I feel the author of the article, who wrote the entire article less than 48 hours after the event, may have been acting out of WP:HATSHOP motivation, though I should proably assume good faith. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — per Last1in and TheAustinMan. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging and growth-leading economies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was a deletion discussion that resulted in "no consensus" more than five years ago. It's time revisit the status of this article and my view it's time to delete the article. The reason for the deletion is this: This is a flashy term coined by a company which has occasionally been regurgitated by low-quality sources. The article was literally created by a COI account working for the company. There is no sustained significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to advertise slogans and labels that companies bandy about to advertise their services. The term overlaps with terms such as Emerging market, Newly industrialized country, developing country, Less developed country and half a dozen similar concepts. The existence of countless non-notable versions of the same concept leads to articles of worse quality and wastes the time of editors. Since the 2018 AfD discussion, no changes have been made to this article to make the article of any interest to readers or in compliance with content policies (the article is solely sourced to the company's own documents). If there is anything worth keeping in this article (there isn't), then the content should be merged with any of the aforementioned articles. Thenightaway (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Economics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haven't checked earlier discussion but it makes sense to delete now. NavjotSR (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Thadeshwar[edit]

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

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Facebook	1. https://m.facebook.com/dellip.thadeshwar/
Name mention in database record	2. ^ Srihari, Gudipoodi (29 November 2001). "Unlikely flick from SVK". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 30 May 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
Name mention, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "SV Krishna Reddy to direct 'Jaabili'". Idlebrain.com. 25 July 2001. Archived from the original on 1 June 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
Promo about film, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject dirtectly and indepth	4. ^ "NRI girl for NRI's film Joke Falls!". Viggy.

BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found for this person. Sources used in the article aren't the best, facebook and two others that are a trivial mention and a film review. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Advertising, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Could not find any in depth sources. I am one of the main contributors. DareshMohan (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR for his significant roles (main/lead) in multiple notable productions, that received coverage.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. None of the keep !votes are policy based and sourcing has been shown to be of insufficient depth. Star Mississippi 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Arbitration and Mediation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

textbook definition of an advertisement / a majority of the article fails NPOV Itanalot (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has a previous AfD which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Arbitration_and_Mediation Itanalot (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2023 (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/2023 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Business, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not finding much coverage within the reach of publicly accessible Google Search. I can't really comment on notability. It is a group within a specialized field. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards keep on WP:IAR grounds, as this is a somewhat important arbitration institution, not as big as JAMS but certainly known in arbitration circles. But very hard to find sources partly because its name is pretty generic (for example, FINRA has national arbitration and mediation rules). Some sources about subsidiary ClickNSettle that mention NAM:

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Two Roads Diverged: A Tale of Technology and Alternative Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution[38] - about a page
"Law and technology: what does the future hold for ADR?" [2001] ANZRIArbMedr 27; (2001) 20(3) The Arbitrator & Mediator 1 [39] a paragraph on page 19
Online Dispute Resolution: Global Issues and Australian Standards" [2002] ANZRIArbMedr 20; (2002) 21(2) The Arbitrator & Mediator 21[40] about a paragraph, similar to the Law & Tech article

Oblivy (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of WP:IAR. I didn't vote earlier as I was hoping to see greater discussion. There is little rationale for deletion beyond strict application of WP:GNG which would not make sense given the pervasiveness of NAM clauses and their real-world notability. This is the kind of situation IAR was designed for.

I could see a rationale for merging this article with other private arbitral institutions such as:

American Arbitration Association not well sourced
Forum (alternative dispute resolution) has proper sourcing because they do credit card disputes which puts them in some disrepute.
JAMS (organization) looks like it has good sourcing but when you drill down some of those articles are about NAF and others talk about them in limited context, not enough for an article

Ultimately arbitration doesn't generate a lot of headlines because it's confidential, but that makes it valuable to have Wikipedia articles so people can get some level of understanding of what they are. Oblivy (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Oblivy -- Imo this is a lazy nomination where a user with less than 300 edits would rather twinkle tag AFD than rewrite or improve the article. NPOV copy issues aren't always grounds for deletion, and the references combined with public status demonstrate notability. Perhaps the editor could make edits to portion of article he believes fail NPOV Cray04 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insults seem unnecessary RetroCosmos (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not a reason to delete. It is no insult, merely my opinion. As progressive as wikipedia can be, there is a very militant-esque culture of upholding standards and, critiques and feedback are necessary. There was no insult here. Cray04 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

difficult to believe that first sentence was anything but RetroCosmos (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2023 (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. I'm unable to locate a single source that comes close to meeting GNG/NCORP criteria, I've looked for analyst reports or any kind of neutral third party articles and I'm unable to locate a single one. Invoking IAR is inappropriate at AfD in circumstances where no arguments have been put forward to justify ignoring the community's guidelines. I'm also not convinced a redirect is appropriate, none of the suggestions appear to be connected with the topic company. A better alternative might be Arbitration in the United States but I'm also unsure if this is connected to the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point, allthough arbitrators (and the sanctioned companies providing them) are a major part of that process, and this company does seem have some notability. Cray04 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. in light of article improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Extension[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Only non-primary hit is from a student newspaper; all other search results are apparently about an unrelated expansion of the national park in which the program takes place. Fermiboson (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Oregon. Fermiboson (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article author has self-declared COI, see here. Fermiboson (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Extension is a 48 year old university level education program. Not associated with any one university, it intentionally consists of a small select group of students and faculty. Failing to meet Fermiboson standard of GNG does not equate to unworthiness to be published on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonDias19 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added sources and content. Some sources are campus newspapers. However, there is an entire chapter in a book as well as signification coverage in an Oxford University Press book. Sources confirm notability. Rublamb (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the book sources described above that have been added to the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Companions and Pets Party[edit]

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

NORG fail. (Article is also promotional/POV, but not relevant here.) Source 1 is a primary source, 3, 6 and 7 are passing list mentions. 2 is behind a paywall, so I can't see it (doesn't make a difference if it satisfies GNG criteria). 4 is a copy-paste from the party press release, according to the line at the bottom of the article. 5 is also locked behind a paywall but from what I can see it appears to be an interview. 8 is an obviously non-independent source from the lobby behind the party. Unable to find any additional coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Fermiboson (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe political party. Source analysis by nom clearly shows GNG not met. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and @LibStar
Cray04 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I did create the article, and I don't consider it promotional, or at least was never intended to be as such. Regardless, I am more than willing to alter the content to make something more substantial. (though I do also express some concerns that the draft I submitted to AfC was probably accepted pre emptively, but that's not a discussion for here). KangarooGymnast (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept your good faith, I'm not sure how linking "animal extremists" to another political party or "provide a more pragmatic alternative" could ever be perceived as NPOV. If you do have substantial sources feel free to add them to the article as is (or just provide them - sources which show notability don't need to be in the article to pass AfD). Fermiboson (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There's an editor here who is willing to work on this article, improving its sourcing. I think it should be moved back to Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per KangarooGymnast and Liz. As KangarooGymnast has expressed a willingness to improve the article in order to satisfy the notability guidelines, I think they should be given the opportunity to do so in draft space. Sal2100 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, if there's someone willing to get it to a good standard, then it should have no problem leaving draftspace after some good work. GraziePrego (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Currently the sourcing doesn't meet the notability standards, but if users are committed to finding additional sources, no issues putting this one in draft space so they can find them. User:Let'srun 14:20, 18 December 2023 (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.