Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 12	November 14 >

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 redirect‎ to Richard Rusczyk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Problem Solving[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The company lacks notability under WP:NCORP. The best available source is this review from Common Sense Media. Otherwise coverage is promotional or otherwise unreliable, with the current sourcing being nearly 100% from the company itself (or the website of one of its products). Speaking of promotional, the current writing feels more like a product advertisement than an article and so even if it is notable, would recommend TNT or major rewrite to avoid this issue. As an alternative to deletion recommend redirecting to Richard Rusczyk which had been done but was reverted. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Mathematics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AfDs were twelve years ago, so availability of sourcing may be better now. There appears to be some nontrivial coverage in Baron, Kathryn (Fall 2019), "Serving the Math Whiz Kids: Private Enrichment Programs Step Up To Meet The Need", Education Next, 19 (4) and a short paragraph (maybe not enough depth to count for much) in McShane, Michael Q. (March 2023), Surveying Educational Entrepreneurs: The Headwinds and Tailwinds to Building New Educational Enterprises, EdChoice, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did find McShane and included it in my analysis above in terms of being insufficient for NCORP. I had not found Baron. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the founder's article - he's clearly notable, and this is his vehicle, rather than being notable in itself. Llajwa (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Rusczyk as above. Its notability seems to be borderline, but not really independent from Rusczyk. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 20 November 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 Botswana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesego Moeng[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Botswana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that comes up in searches are passing mentions like 1 and 2. I searched both "Lesego Moeng" and "Gloria Moeng". JTtheOG (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Botswana. JTtheOG (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 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. Nobody has produced any sufficient evidence to not delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Buffalo Records[edit]

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

This was a redirect to the Cornell radio station until Dalvago (a user with a conflict of interest) converted it into an article. The record label is quite simply not notable. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gain absolutely nothing from this Wikipedia page being created. I never worked with the label, and even if I did/had, I would not gain a single dollar from it (the label is unpaid volunteer-run, as the article says). Just because you personally do not find it notable, does not mean it is not under Wikipedia standards. I have followed all notability and credibility guidelines and made sure of it.

Please refrain from this seemingly personal vendetta making you revert/delete every article and edit I make. Dalvago (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalvago Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think the only edits I have made on any article that you have edited were both on Electric Buffalo Records, the first to restore the redirect and the second to start this deletion discussion when you reverted me. There is nothing personal in my actions. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In WP:MUSIC's words, this is not an important indie label - one with "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". It has only one artist that seems to pass notability muster, and only after leaving the label. The article is sourced largely from social media sites, primary sources, and the Cornell Daily Sun, which is not independent; I'd change my vote if we found more sources from third-party media outlets outside of Ithaca, NY. Chubbles (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles I appreciate your feedback and the note from WP:Music, but what you are citing is actually referring to artist notability, not that of a record label. See the section you quoted here. The article does not give criteria for record labels, only for artists and ensembles.

To your second point, The Cornell Daily Sun is actually fully independent from both Cornell and any student organization. (It quite literally says so right on their website homepage banner.) Plus, I didn't cite only the Cornell Daily Sun, I cited the Ithaca Times, and Ithaca Journal, as well as 14850.com. I agree that the label is not greatly notable outside of Tompkins County, but that is not criteria for not being deserving of coverage on Wikipedia.Dalvago (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued in the past that WP:MUSIC have explicit criteria for labels, and they were almost implemented; I should probably resurrect that Titanic some time. In the absence of specific guidance, that current language is the best we have, and it also captures the spirit of why we'd ever want to cover a record label in the first place (if it doesn't release any noteworthy music, it's hard to argue that it deserves encyclopedic coverage). I see why you're making that argument about the Daily Sun, and I'm considering whether I'm unfairly judging it; it does seem to have a decidedly campus-based focus, and while Cornell certainly is a prestigious school, I don't know that any campus newspaper substantially demonstrates that campus-based news is noteworthy, because campus newspapers more or less exist to cover even the minutiae of quad life. I'd like to hear from other editors on the merits of that claim. So, the best argument I think you're making here is akin to WP:MUSIC bullet 7, that the label is a significant representative voice of the musical life of a city or region. The Ithaca Journal piece is a WP:MILL music listing, not a spotlight on an EBR artist or the label itself; I wouldn't count it as a substantial independent source. The 14850 one is closer, but that's really more about how about 50 local artists are on Bandcamp; i'm on the fence about that. The Ithaca Times piece is substantial, although it's honestly not very informative (the label was very new at the time and the interview gives a lot of boilerplate about artist success). I'm open to the idea of extending bullet 7 to labels, but I'm just not there with the sourcing I'm seeing, especially with essentially no notable artists (so far). Are there substantial pieces about local musicians signed to the label that indicate how it's changed the musical scene of upstate New York? If we can find those, you'll clear my WP:HEY standard. Chubbles (talk) 07:06, 15 November 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. ✗plicit 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Mellitus College[edit]

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

Struggling to find any significant independent reliable coverage about this recently formed religious college, apart from a couple of articles in The Church Times. Article is currently cited solely to the college website. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Religion. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In fact, the Church Times articles provide a pass for WP:GNG.[1][2] But then there is also an article from The Royal Gazette about how they have a programme in Bermuda.[3] St Anselm (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 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 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shifa Hospital siege[edit]

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

Massive WP:CONTENTFORK from Siege of Gaza City. Article was previously merged into the siege of Gaza City article, with nearly the whole article (all 242 words) merged into the article. This merge was rapidly challenged by a user saying it is independently notable. My argument for merging was CONTENTFORK as well as how the siege of Azovstal steel plant during last year's Siege of Mariupol doesn't have a split article, why should a small siege amid the larger parent (consensus confirmed) notable topic of the Siege of Gaza City. Again, a CONTENTFORK of 242 words is what this siege article is. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be inclined to 'Keep' the article but rename it. There doesn't seem a lot at the moment to warrant describing it as a siege within a siege, but the hospital is clearly a key focus of the IDF during this war. The Siege of Gaza City article seems to be in the form of a timeline, with spin-off articles about key events, of which Al-Shifa Hospital is becoming a major part. Sionk (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep To clarify, the blockade on Al-Shifa Hospital is distinct from the one imposed on the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip blockade entails restricting the entry of food, beverages, diesel, and petroleum derivatives throughout the military operation, while the blockade on Al-Shifa Hospital occurred after ground forces entered. It's essential to highlight that the siege on Al-Shifa Hospital commenced specifically on November 10, making it a singular and distinct event from the Gaza Strip blockade.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 22:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there isn't an issue with having a military operation within a military operation as an article, the hospital is very notable, and the content is well sourced and independently notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn AfD - Initial AfD reasoning resolved as it is no longer a direct copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:43, 13 November 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 moving towards keeping the page in light of newly added sources; still-unreferenced material can be cleaned up. ^Complex/_Rational 02:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No citations (for the last 12 years), no obvious NMUSIC pass, no obvious RS from a quick BEFORE. Lots of uncited and BLP information. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, yes, what Tagishsimon says. But MNewnham expressed a desire to demonstrate the band's notability a mere 17 years, 11 months ago. Perhaps a half-century is needed? ("There is no deadline.") -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New York, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of no claims of achieving anything notable, no suitable citations about the band found in the last 12 years. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : La Santa Cecilia is a band, witg some sourcing. Nothing for this band, called Cecilia alone. Article is also unsourced, from the wild west days of wikipedia it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this is such a case. Verifiable does not mean cited. Citations serve to verify that the information is verifiable, but verifiability of the information rests on the existence and availability of sources, not on the references themselves. The wild west days of Wikipedia are: There are no references + the content is NOT verifiable (could be subjective, could be made up, could be any kind of junk). This article was responsibly and neutrally written and prose is of reasonable quality. Important content points can easily be verified. I am now finding sources and adding citations to the article. —Alalch E. 11:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they do have a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- They also have this WaPo article written about them in 1999: Cecilia: All in the Family—Alalch E. 10:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source, 2004 (this is RS for this purpose, find it in WP:RSP for an explanation): Cecilia’s family groove—Alalch E. 11:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Another WaPo source with sigcov [4]—Alalch E. 15:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable band. See the sources in the thread above this comment. (AllMusic bio, The Washington Post). They contain significant coverage. This was a regionally significant band for a period of few years that was signed to Atlantic Records.—Alalch E. 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants to respond to the WP:HEY initiative: @Tagishsimon, Hoary, Sionk, Oaktree b, and Atlantic306: Sources were found. They are in the article (not all contribute to notability but at multiple do) and some are mentioned in the above comments. Many previously unsourced claims can be verified via references now. Does this affect your recommendation in this AfD?—Alalch E. 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's much improved -- but still problematic. Sionk and (just a couple of minutes ago) I have removed a lot of "Where are they now?" chitchat; but above that the article still has such unreferenced material as The vocals are supported by Drew's lead guitar riffs, often evoking Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds comparisons and Kevin Jacoby's melodic bass lines, often in the style of Fleetwood Mac's John McVie. Patriarch Ken plays drums as well as adding vocals and guitar parts (often simultaneously). Ken is known for playing a bare-bones "street kit" that includes a Djembe as an all-purpose drum. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the sources are paywalled and I don't have time to, um, use other methods to unpaywall them... WaPo is a solid source, usually. I'll put my money on that horse today as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia totally respects copyrights and using any sort of a ladder that's around 12 feet long, or look at today's archives, io, are not what we should be doing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG in my view. Unreferenced material can be removed, also I don't see an issue in using archives otherwise it would only be the well off who edited wikipedia, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 November 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 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bunker[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Only sources provided are routine/promotional coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Management, Internet, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hits are for LNG barge bunkers in Gnews; this person's Gsearch is straight to social media, linkedin, then not much of anything. No sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Searched a bit (not exhaustive) on newspapers.com and Google and only found one article that's not already used. Doesn't help that this Wikipedia article was created by Ryanckulp, blocked in 2018 because "10 out of 16 of his creations have been deleted for advertising and/or suspected UPE."

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 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion[edit]

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

The article was created, apparently, by copying and pasting a bunch of text from the overall 2023 Israel-Hamas war article. Removing all of that, it only contains a few paragraphs about the actual explosion, and does not contain anything not already covered at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. This is an unnecessary content fork. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing that isn't covered in the main article. "Unnecessary content fork" sums it up well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above, it's an unnecessary fork.
Delete: I would !vote to merge sourced content not in article into Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Aftermath, but there is none. Unneeded CFORK at this point, if the section grows into something it can be split. // Timothy :: talk 07:04, 15 November 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lover (2016 film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. Source are primary and none of the awards are from major festivals. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MOVIE; no evidence of notability present. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reviews, no major awards. Not enough coverage to justify an article on this film. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 20 November 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Designing Forum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with references that do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and many falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA (note the publication dates, tone, and bylines). CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, India, and Uttar Pradesh. CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I cleaned up the worst of the advertising, but can't find any significant independent coverage, just a ton of paid placement and press releases. It also doesn't seem to operate outside of India, despite its grand-sounding name. Declined three times at draft, two of which were after this article was created. Wikishovel (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tendentious AfC resubmissions followed by mainspace creation to bypass AfC altogether. Not notable per above editors. Uhai (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. It is a brochure advertising article. No redeeming features. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Creator looks like they were on a paid-editing tear. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 19 November 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Morkunas[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable politician and businessman. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the sources mention the subject as a member of parliament, the other sources i see are interviews or more like PR which is not WP:RS. Another WP:ROTM. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Lithuania. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Wikibusines spam. MER-C 14:12, 18 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alvine Kamaha[edit]

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

Assistant professor, notability questioned as there are no 2nd or 3rd party independent sources cited that qualify per N. Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). See UCLA source: How UCLA’s Alvine Kamaha helped build the world’s most sensitive dark matter detector, and 5 mentions from the American Physical Society. A Google search brings up numerous international multi-year results for Alvine Kamaha and her work. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a high-citation field and her high-citation publications are all with huge numbers of coauthors, so we don't have WP:PROF#C1. Only full-professor endowed professorships count for WP:PROF#C5, not her "Keith and Cecilia Terasaki Chair" for an assistant professor. And three of the four sources we have are non-independent, and don't provide evidence of passing WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. That leaves only the possibility of WP:PROF#C2 through the Edward A. Bouchet Award [5]. The questions should be: is that award enough, by itself? Alternatively, are there enough additional in-depth independent sources, like the "black voices in physics" source, to pass WP:GNG isntead? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be borderline on WP:ANYBIO#C2 for The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Specifically regarding subject's contribution to LUX-Zeplin. Definitely a part of the enduring historical record in its field, definitely a recognized contribution by the subject. Is the subject's contribution "widely" recognized though? —siro χ o 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the Edward A. Bouchet Award doesn't have its own article as just one of dozens APS gives, I'm going to go with no, that's not enough for notability. There are hundreds of people majorly involved in LUX-Zeplin, so I'd want more than a release from her own university to establish wide recognition. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order to argue The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field we need independent and WP:RS to actually say so. I did not see any independent RS detailing her exact contribution to the experiment. The only independent source seems to [6] which seems reliable but on closer inspection just quotes a press release by UCLA which cannot be considered independent and talks about the 250 scientists involved. Another source [7] describes her as a "calibration operations coordinator". --hroest 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing notability under WP:PROF; I checked all the papers with >=50 citns on GS and they are all heavily multi-author. ~~Agree the Edward A. Bouchet Award isn't the level of award that PROF covers.~~ On GNG... The Black Voices in physics piece has enough editorial material to count to GNG. There is some indept coverage of her winning the Bouchet award; the Icimac & L'Economie articles (both in French) seem long enough for significant coverage but my French isn't good enough to be sure they aren't translated press releases. Additionally, via Proquest, AllAfrica.com has "Alvine Kamaha - Un brillant triomphe camerounais aux Etats-Unis de la physique moderne"; the other hits there seem to be verbatim press releases. ~~Might be a case of too early career.~~ Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around a bit more wrt the award, per Lajmmoore's comment below, it looks like it is less early career than I had thought based on our article on the APS awards. The other recipients I checked mostly seem to have been clearly notable under WP:PROF before receiving it. Happy to go with Keep based on that and meeting GNG with the sources I mention, plus the APS award bio [8] which describes her work on LUX-ZEPLIN as a "leading role". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's just enough for GNG, but also I would dispute the point on the award - the APS (& the field it represents) is very large (50,000 members), so its logical there would be a range of awards proportionate to its scale, and I note the awards are both subject specific and more pastoral. Lajmmoore (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note at Women in Red Lajmmoore (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally "more pastoral" awards do not confer notability under WP:PROF, imo at least ("a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; emphasis added) though obviously receiving them can lead to independent coverage meeting GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The American Physical Society (APS Physics) confers the Edward A. Bouchet Award on some of the nation's outstanding physicists for their contribution to physics.^[1] (I used 'pastoral' to describe other APS awards e.g. for leadership but I think that was the wrong term to use. This award is for ability and contribution. I assume it contributed to the notability of all these researchers: Anthony M. Johnson, Peter Delfyett, Joseph Johnson III, Michael Duryea Williams, Juan Maldacena, Sylvester James Gates, Oliver Keith Baker, Jorge Pullin, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Herman Brenner White, Homer Neal, Alfred Msezane. Prescod-Weinstein is closest in age to Kamaha, and I'd argue that the fact Kamaha has been awarded such a prestigous award at such a young age adds to her notability, not detracts from it. I also reject the comment earlier in the discussion that the award doesn't contribute to notability because it doesn't have a Wikipedia page of its own. As we all know there is huge bias in the content on WP (which I know lots of people in this discussion are actively working to counter), so the fact that an award named after a black scientist hasn't been written by a predominately white editorship should be taken into consideration when assessing notability. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: if we have to struggle over whether or not a single award makes this person notable, they are not; thus the AfD. Yes, we make allowances for academics, but let's not reduce the value of those who actually unquestionably qualify per SNG. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a general question as to whether subjects working in academia who don't meet WP:PROF should have an article; imo, if they meet another guideline (eg AUTHOR, GNG), failing PROF is not an obstacle. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This contention has always been accepted. Unfortunately it doesn't work here as there are not enough other things. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ "American Physical Society, Edward A. Bouchet Award". Archived from the original on June 15, 2010.

Delete for now. Cites are slender for this high cited field and author numbers are high so it is not clear what her contribution has been. WP:Too soon, which means maybe in a few years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree with Espresso Addict's analysis. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NBIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and ANYBIO#1, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The sources in the article discussing their work and accomplishments show article meet guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 21 November 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 Westminster 2010: Declaration of Christian Conscience. There's a consensus that this declaration is not notable. Most of the keep !votes were flat assertions of importance or assertions of inherited notability, without reference to sources or notability guidelines, so I discarded those comments. Looking at the remaining comments, a supermajority of commenters found the sourcing inadequate to show notability.

I'm redirecting to Westminster 2010: Declaration of Christian Conscience to restore the status quo ante, and to keep the page history if people want to merge some content to Internet censorship or elsewhere as suggested. This redirection is not meant to prevent people from retargeting the redirect or converting the page to a DAB page as suggested by Cielquiparle. Galobtter (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Declaration[edit]

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

Seems to fail to meet GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to fail to meet Event notability guidelines: (1) Almost certainly no enduring historical significance (2) No impact and not analyzed in sources, there is basically no coverage of this and it goes to no depth at all, at best summarizing the declaration. Phiarc (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Phiarc (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Only 3 days out from this declaration, looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. If there is more media coverage in the coming days or weeks, then maybe. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Events, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It was for example in Die Welt https://www.welt.de/kultur/plus248023426/Westminster-Declaration-Warnung-vor-dem-industriellen-Zensurkomplex.html and The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-warned-over-censorship-of-ordinary-people-pswfs75fg and have a long list of iconic persons that are signatories. It was also reported on by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi who have written articles on Racket and Public that "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" - which is the case. Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi have frequently featured as experts with regards to censorship on reliable news such as The Hill and Reason (both can be found here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and have been used as expert witnesses in the Congress. It was also published by academic experts from https://futurefreespeech.com/publications/ "The Future of Free Speech is a collaboration between Copenhagen based judicial think tank Justitia, Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression and Aarhus University’s Department of Political Science. Through our project, we have brought an evidence-based approach to the burning questions raised by the principles and practices of free speech in an interconnected digital world". Other significant sources too, not all reliable. Cheers. 193.169.154.232 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the title was created as a redirect to Westminster 2010: Declaration of Christian Conscience in 2010 so if there is consensus this one isn't notable it should probably be returned to a redirect there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, 13 years later, that doesn't look notable, either. The "Manhattan Declaration" which caused these copycat declarations seems notable though. Phiarc (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussing this in classes on censorship. Will be important as background to Missouri v. Biden (No. 3:22-CV-01213) which is set for Supreme Court 2023-2024.. Kmccook (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Declaration. This article (proposing the deletion) should be redirected to the page on irony. To delete the Wikipedia page about the declaration only validates the declaration's point. ^[1].Cmilescody (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear hear! 2A02:AB88:C88:B400:916:FA22:69F4:B450 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Declaration

Keep. The article is about a trend whereby platform administrators decide what counts as newsworthy and delete ideas and opinions that are deemed unworthy, unimportant or false based on their subjective opinion. This is what is happening here: an article is appointed for cancellation even though it had a list of notable signatories and have been covered by Western press. I wonder why this article in particular is singled out for deletion when much less notable declarations and less covered news or personalities warrant a page. --2A02:AB88:C88:B400:916:FA22:69F4:B450 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of coverage beyond the outlets that chose to essentially copy-and-paste what is written in the original means that the article unavoidably fails two of our three core content policies. One of which cannot be waived by consensus. The keep !votes focusing on WP:ITSIMPORTANT merely underscore this fact. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original

I am distinctly unimpressed at the suggestion that having standards is equal to censorship (less than surprised, but) and very tempted to simply drop a WP:OMGWTFBBQ here and leave. (NOTNEWS! BREAKING? PRIMARY. NOTINHERITED! RGW) I will however point out that while it's no doubt very unfair, fundamentally Wikipedia's coverage is limited by the editorial choices of respected mainstream publications with, specifically, independent, secondary coverage required to assess relative weight. It is, in a word, if that it be divorced from its political connotations, a very conservative philosophy, in the sense of "adherence to the status quo"; and while we are permitted radical action in many respects (WP:BOLD, WP:IAR) the basis of our core content policies is not one of them. So:
- Commenters wishing to decry the censorship taking in this very place are welcome to read the essay Wikipedia:Free speech and policy of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
  - Wikipedia is not, for example, a journal club, or a place to discuss what we learnt in class today. That may well fall into the scope of another project, and "important background information" might be, if verifiably considered so by RS, included in the appropriate article. A sentence or so might even find its way (assuming due weight) onto a hypothetical article on the assertion of political bias in content moderation, or something similar (though while there is some volume of primary research on this topic, it is less clear that there are any systematic reviews of the available literature). That does not make the topic suitable for a standalone encyclopedic article. If your class reliably publishes content from those discussions, then we're talking. (Talking, in this case, does not imply automatic acceptance, but it does mean the start of an argument can be made)
  - Notability is not inherited from the identities of its signatories. An encyclopedia article needs to be beyond a list of the people who have signed something, republished something, or have associated themselves with something. I'm sure The Future of Free Speech is very notable, but them announcing some specific notable person signing and publishing nothing else, other than the original text (while presumably verifying that specific fact) does not let us write anything. Taibbi, Shellenberger might be themselves notable, but what is there to write? The Times and Die Welt would be fine if they actually wrote much beyond copying and pasting the original text of the declaration. They don't. What are we left with, opinion pieces?
Without something secondary we can state in wikivoice, we won't have an article here, we would have a collection of context-free information; and make no mistake, Considering the high profile of the signatories, media coverage on the declaration was noticeably low is not something we can state in wikivoice. No doubt it is very unfair for those being censored that we're not allowed to point out the WP:TRUTH that it is being suppressed here. Nor simply state the claims therein in wikivoice as fact. Without significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources, there will not be an article because there cannot be an article. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The declaration covers a significant matter with potentially large impact on most of the population. It was signed by a substantial number of some of the world's best known academics and intellectuals. And it had significant coverage by some major mainstream media companies, even though it had explicitly criticized them.
Keep. --Geek3 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable declaration signed by a substantial number of notable people. It's not surprise that much of the media wouldn't be keen to cover something which directly criticizes their business. In any case, it has received some coverage from "reliable" sources (an increasingly questionable terminology for many of them, which is the whole point). HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Includes notable personalities and is covered in reputable press - the proposal to delete this article proves why this must remain --2A02:AB88:C88:B400:916:FA22:69F4:B450 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please just leave this in the list of old open AfDs for a few days, thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason why? This would be somewhat a departure from general procedure (which is close or relist once they appear there), so keen to hear the rationale for potentially IARing it. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did notice that there are usually much fewer discussions at OAFD than there were a few years ago. I really don't think a relist is at all likely to bring in more participants in this case, I'm not sure I can clearly explain why (may need to think about this a little more), though I suppose there's also no guarantee leaving it without a relist will bring in participants either. There does appear to be two new comments but they appear to be from the same person. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from relisting admin: As a reminder to commenters that "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" controls the closure instead of vote counts
Keeps are, so far, a wide variety of incredibly weak points such as "deleting is censorship", ITSIMPORTANT, ILIKEIT, notability is inherited from the signers, this will be important, and the media is covering this up. None of them will be given much weight. Please focus your discussion on how this topic meets or does not meet policy, such as the GNG or a SNG --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, Swale has a point about the redirect, and I agree with it. Being reported on by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi really doesn't count as independent sources, since they wrote the thing in the first place, which throws out 193.169.154.232's argument. To quote a public statement of another of its authors, Andrew Lowenthal: [...] Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and myself in London in June this year (hence "Westminster"). It was that group that developed the declaration [...] So let's look to see if an article can be properly written.
Of course this won't have hit the history books or the political science journals yet, but I checked anyway. There's nothing. So there are no high quality sources from political experts to be had. That leaves only one pool of possible sources: news reporting. Well, the search engines all give me articles that are all marked as the same number of days old. Unsurprisingly, all of the sources cited in the article are all the same date, too, give or take timezone differences. It's 1 news cycle, with many of the stories largely identical and not providing much in-depth analysis; and then nothing at all. I independently found the article by The Telegraph, for example, and 9 paragraphs were it just quoting the document wholesale unfiltered, with the remainder being paraphasing. This indicates that there isn't much in the way of reliable independent good quality sourcing to be had, and what there is isn't in-depth and hasn't been followed up on.
This doesn't meet the notability bar.
Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there is a consensus that the 2023 one isn't notable then the redirect to the 2010 one should be restored and if deletion of the 2010 one is desired that one can be sent to AFD and this redirect then would be deleted as G8. If deletion of the redirect is then desired it can go to RFD or if disambiguation or retargeting is desired it can either be done boldly or through RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my guess is that it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if this is going to be a notable thing and we need to wait for the requisite independent reliable sources to cover it. It might take off or it might sink without trace - and it isn't our job to give it credibility or otherwise. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has been reported by Die Welt, the New York Post, and the Telegraph. That's clearly sufficient coverage in itself. Yes, it's recent, and no one ever knows whether recent events will have lasting impact, but there has never been any consensus for a moratorium on recent events, so we can't go guessing about this one, but must judge it only on its present coverage. If it turns out to be an irrelevant flash-in-the-pan in six months' time, we can always discuss deletion again. Elemimele (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telegraph is such a piss-poor source that it doesn't even tell us who wrote the document. I had to do primary research to find that out. The Telegraph also spends 3 paragraphs not even discussing the subject at all, but talking about itself and its prior reporting on something else, in addition to the paraphrasing and 9 paragraphs of outright bulk-quoting the document. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So many sources covering issues highlighted in the Westminster Declaration are appearing at Substack. An article at Public on 11/10/23: Stanford Group Helped US Government Censor Covid Dissidents and Then Lied About It, New Documents Show (substack.com) cites Virality Project reports that confirm the government used a Stanford cut-out to censor true content about Covid vaccines, vindicating Twitter Files reporting.Kmccook (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Kmccook, you can't seriously tell me in your 7 thousand edits that you've never heard that substack blogs are not considered WP:RS and are not suitable for the purposes of WP:V. What are you even trying to say here? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly know that one cannot use Substack in articles , but this is a discussion about the deletion of the article. I would expect reasoned sources about the topic can be considered in this discussion. The article at Public (co-sponsors of the Westminster Declaration) provides information about a report from the House Judiciary Committee: 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑾𝙀𝑨𝙋𝑶𝙉𝑰𝙕𝑨𝙏𝑰𝙊𝑵 𝑶𝙁 “𝑫𝙄𝑺𝙄𝑵𝙁𝑶𝙍𝑴𝘼𝑻𝙄𝑶𝙉” 𝑷𝙎𝑬𝙐𝑫𝙊-𝙀𝑿𝙋𝑬𝙍𝑻𝙎 𝘼𝑵𝘿 𝘽𝑼𝙍𝑬𝘼𝑼𝘾𝑹𝘼𝑻𝙎: 𝑯𝙊𝑾 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑭𝙀𝑫𝙀𝑹𝘼𝑳 𝑮𝙊𝑽𝙀𝑹𝙉𝑴𝙀𝑵𝙏 𝙋𝑨𝙍𝑻𝙉𝑬𝙍𝑬𝘿 𝙒𝑰𝙏𝑯 𝑼𝙉𝑰𝙑𝑬𝙍𝑺𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑬𝙎 𝙏𝑶 𝑪𝙀𝑵𝙎𝑶𝙍 𝘼𝑴𝙀𝑹𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑵𝙎’ 𝑷𝙊𝑳𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑳 𝑺𝙋𝑬𝙀𝑪𝙃.11/6/2023.https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/EIP_Jira-Ticket-Staff-Report-11-7-23-Clean.pdf This report, whether you approve of the chairman or not, is in the public sphere and provides information about the topic.Kmccook (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kmccook, are you saying you want to write an article on the general topic? I don't think my approval (or lack thereof) of a politician would change the fact that that report does not mention the subject of this article (as far as I can tell) a single time. I was also aware that the substack article was non-independent, I just didn't feel the need to bring it up. You are correct that this is a discussion relates to the deletion of this article. For more information on the process, you may find the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Typical format is around whether there are enough independent reliable sources writing things in their own words, so that we can write an article based on those words instead of our own interpretations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Alpha3031,The Virality Project discussed in 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑾𝙀𝑨𝙋𝑶𝙉𝑰𝙕𝑨𝙏𝑰𝙊𝑵 𝑶𝙁 “𝑫𝙄𝑺𝙄𝑵𝙁𝑶𝙍𝑴𝘼𝑻𝙄𝑶𝙉” 𝑷𝙎𝑬𝙐𝑫𝙊-𝙀𝑿𝙋𝑬𝙍𝑻𝙎 𝘼𝑵𝘿 𝘽𝑼𝙍𝑬𝘼𝑼𝘾𝑹𝘼𝑻𝙎: 𝑯𝙊𝑾 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑭𝙀𝑫𝙀𝑹𝘼𝑳 𝑮𝙊𝑽𝙀𝑹𝙉𝑴𝙀𝑵𝙏 𝙋𝑨𝙍𝑻𝙉𝑬𝙍𝑬𝘿 𝙒𝑰𝙏𝑯 𝑼𝙉𝑰𝙑𝑬𝙍𝑺𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑬𝙎 𝙏𝑶 𝑪𝙀𝑵𝙎𝑶𝙍 𝘼𝑴𝙀𝑹𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑵𝙎’ 𝑷𝙊𝑳𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑳 𝑺𝙋𝑬𝙀𝑪𝙃.11/6/2023.https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/EIP_Jira-Ticket-Staff-Report-11-7-23-Clean.pdf demonstrates why the Westminster Declaration is meaningful.Kmccook (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Kathleen, we don't write articles for things because they're "meaningful", we do so where, among other things, it's possible to write something not in violation of our content policies. Which, for one, does not allow Wikipedia editors to make stuff up wholesale based on their own interpretation of events (WP:Original research) nor base an entire article on primary sources (same policy, also violates the other two if the primary sources are non-independent) which includes "this is a thing that happened, now here is a copy-paste/translation of some stuff from it" and not much beyond that. If you want to write about things because they're meaningful, the place to do that is your blog, a peer-reviewed journal, some kind of opinion column or some other article with a publisher of primary or secondary works. Or a book or something. If you do it through a reputable publisher, we could possibly even use it as one of the sources. But: no suitable sources to write an encyclopedia article from, no encyclopedia article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Alpha3031, I understand and hope that someone will write about this in a source that can be cited. Reading the hearings provides background information for someone to do so.Kmccook (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it is a point only addressed obliquely above: The Substack article is a self-published source written by one Andrew Lowenthal, as stated twice in boldface on the page (once in the byline in capital letters), who stated elsewhere that xe is the author of this article's subject, and isn't about this article's subject, and doesn't mention it at all. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering who's signed it, I wonder if this might be best smerged to Internet censorship?—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another related article that can be used as a merge target?

I've come across several reliable sources discussing the topic of the declaration, addressing the balance between protecting free speech and combating disinformation (https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-respond-disinformation-while-protecting-free-speech, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/business/free-speech-social-media-lawsuit.html etc), but nothing that would discuss the declaration itself in depth.

There's definitely an overlap with Internet censorship, but it seems that the topic of free speech vs misinformation has gained notability on it's own. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually, what about deplatforming as the hypothetical target? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, although deplatforming isn't always related to disinformation. I was thinking of something like Disinformation and freedom of speech ideally. (Google Scholar)

The topic seems to be discussed at Freedom of speech#Relationship with disinformation, but I couldn't find anything else. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Westminster Declaration goes way beyond internet censorship. It also covers classical media and government politics. Also, deplatforming is only one tiny little aspect of the declaration's message. Certainly, freedom of speech is a main aspect, but then, attempts to prohibit decrypted private communication is not covered. Keeping the declaration in its own article is by far the best option. --Geek3 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not an actual option because of WP:NOR and WP:NOT. As a fairly experienced editor, you should be well aware of the content policies. (There really isn't anything to merge IMO, beyond a bare mention) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am well aware of the content policies, and I read and understand your points. We need to have standards, and I don't see that as an act of censorship. My prior judgement is already based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, aware of WP:NOR and WP:NOT, and by that I still see the topic clearly notable for a standalone article. And sure, we shall also discuss and further improve the article's content by these guidelines. --Geek3 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geek3, if it's so clearly notable then you should have no problem presenting some secondary sources that address the article subject directly and in-detail, in their own words independent of the subject then. Or, since you know of OR, let's hypothetically remove every single sentence based only on primary sources or not based on any sources at all. You can tell me what's left. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The article already cites a bunch of large-media sources which report specifically on the declaration, not just mentioning it as a side-note. There were numerous reportings in classical and other media such as blogs and public radio, even outside the English-speaking world (e.g. [9]). An example of a critical in-depth discussion (although in a non-citable biased source) is named below by Cielquiparle. And for the direct quote, the best source is the official declaration itself. --Geek3 (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: make efforts to flesh out Tallard (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This Daily Beast op ed piece, "'Twitter Files' Hucksters Are Once Again Cosplaying as Free Speech Martyrs", offers a rather different point of view of this Westminster Declaration...and per WP:BIASED, Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Anyway, worth considering whether some of the content from this "2023 Westminster Declaration" page could be merged to the Twitter Files "Aftermath" section for now as an WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. Westminster Declaration should be a disambiguation page for all things referred to as "Westminster Declaration", including:

Plus this one if it's kept or merged. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and since the article itself admits that "media coverage on the declaration was noticeably low". --Kammerer55 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that ″significant coverage″ does not refer to the amount of articles, but whether the subject was the main topic of the referring articles, which it is. --Geek3 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does not have to be "the main topic" as per WP:SIGCOV, but it should address the topic "in detail". I can read only what New York Post wrote (as other two sources require subscription), but it seems that it is mainly paraphrasing the text and listing the signatories, and the article in question does the same. Hence it's basically just another "news" event report. Maybe, the declaration would eventually produce some real-world effects, but it is too soon to tell. Currently, the topic seems to be more suitable for Wikinews and maybe for Wikisource (as the declaration has a CC-license). Kammerer55 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are clearly enough sources, and stating it didn't exceed expectations is insider talk, so the remaining issue is a subjective one: how much continuing coverage will this likely get beyond a single news cycle? I fall in the camp that it's likely to have "legs." Bearian (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why are we arguing about whether it might be lastingly notable in the future? That's exactly why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:NEVENT in the first place. It's not notable yet. Might it have lasting impact and become notable in the future? Sure! We can write an article on it then. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet censorship. While the declaration covers more than just online media, it seems best suited as a section there. History of the original page is preserved, in case notability becomes clearer in the future, and the article is to be revived as a standalone. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 25 November 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 withdrawn‎. Improvements to the article have been made which address the original concerns. It appears as if local editors have access to offline and or very local resources which alleviates the original concerns. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cote, West Sussex[edit]

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

No evidence to suggest such a neighbourhood or suburb going by this name actually exists. It appears to be a name given to an area by someone but this has no sourcing or any other verification to support such a neighbourhood or suburb actually existing. Yes lots of pictures are on wikicommons but that is not evidence or viefication. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well this makes a change from the GNIS mess. Interestingly, this is on the Ordnance Survey maps at exactly the coördinates that GeoHack passes through. It's in the same typeface as Clapham and a larger typeface than Clapham Common (which is not Clapham Common), whatever that signifies. (Mangoe?) So it does exist, at least. It's going to be difficult to find history with a word like that, though. Hmmm. Victoria History, maybe. Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And indeed Victoria History it was. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~or merge with Worthing~~. It really does exist, even if you want to ignore the Commons photos of it, or its name on the OS map. It was not big enough to be notable in the 19th century, because Worthing was still small, and not yet the town that it is today (so no mention in VCH), but there may well be mentions of it in 20th/21st-century newspapers, whose archives are not yet online. So this one is a waiting game, with no improvement to WP if its existing information and links were deleted. Whatever we do, we should keep the location, information, details and links. Storye book (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Now that some authoritative evidence has been added to the article (thank you, Uncle G), I believe that there is now no case for deletion. Storye book (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That says "coates" and is next to a place called "holt". Does this place actually exist today, or is this singular map actually authoritative and where is the rest of the sourcing for this place to exist? I understand a map is great but is is accurate? Where are the sources of this place being mentioned and where is the evidence it exists today? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (prompted partly by local knowledge) I will leave it to those familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions to make the final decision on this, but I can offer the following:
- As per the Victoria County History sources added by Uncle G, Cote was historically a hamlet within the parish of Durrington; if "Merge" is the outcome, the Durrington article should be the destination.
- Care should be taken not to confuse it with the nearby village of Coates, West Sussex.
- It was sometimes known as "Walcote" in the medieval period (see VCH reference): this may assist with source-finding.
- The 1898 OS map shows its extent and its relationship to Durrington parish. The number of buildings has not really changed since then.
- I have thoroughly reviewed all my Sussex and Worthing book sources: 10 Worthing-specific books and about 25 Sussex-related including the likes of Lucas's Highways and Byways of Sussex, the West Sussex Village Book, An Historical Atlas of Sussex, Worthing − From Saxon Settlement to Seaside Town, Worthing − Aspects of Change, Church and Parish of Durrington and Millennium Encyclopaedia of Worthing History, each of which is very comprehensive. Sadly there is very little indeed. Millennium Encyclopaedia of Worthing History states (in the "Place Names" section, p111) "Cote (or Walcote): Home of William de la Cote c1266 or atte Cote 1296". An Historical Atlas of Sussex notes in passing (p32) the placename element "cote" without referring to this Cote specifically. The 65-page Church and Parish of Durrington, a comprehensive parish history since Domesday, mentions nothing; nor do any of the others.
- On request I can supply further details of the books I have consulted. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a look for the flint pits. I haven't yet found a good source for the flint pit excavation at Cotes Bottom, just hints. I'm working from zero knowledge of any of this, by the way. I keep checking the Ordnance Survey map to ensure that what I'm turning up in the histories is the right place. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Worthing − From Saxon Settlement to Seaside Town has quite a lot of detail (pp8–10) about the flint mines in the area, but Cote is not mentioned. Representative quote: Flint mining clearly became an integral part of the activities of these early farming communities. The flint mines at Church Hill (Findon), Blackpatch, Harrow Hill and Cissbury, estimated to have been in existence prior to 3700 BC, are among the earliest in Britain. An extract from the Yeakell and Gardner map you have cited in the article is also shown, although only a section east of Cote. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have passing mentions of "Gaster's Pit 17, Cote Bottom, Durrington, Sussex" and there's obviously a archaeological/geological report out there somewhere to be had. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it was once a recognised hamlet, so meets WP:GEOLAND. Whether it is a separate settlement today or not is utterly irrelevant. Once notable, always notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 14 November 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 14:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Hack[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 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 11:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable businessman or investor. Sources used are either trivial mentions of the subject or promotional articles. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Oman. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another non-notable businessman who became CEO of his family's company, with a hefty PR budget. No indication of notability for the awards received; any coverage I could find in nominally RS is plainly paid placement/paid contributor stuff.

Draft:Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani has an interesting edit history. SPA creator had it undeleted a day after its soft deletion in the first AFD. They added two more paid placement references, and left it for three days, so it was moved to draft. Cue more IPs from India piling in direct and via proxy to REFBOMB it with more junk references. A month later, creator tagged it db-author, and it was deleted again, even though a second account and several IPs had made heavy contributions. resubmitted, and it was declined. Creator then tries their luck with Mohsin Al-Bahrani and Mohsin Al Bahrani, both speedied G11. Fast-forward a year, and draft undeleted again. Paid placement junk gets stripped out by Kuru [10]. Some months go by, and the junk references are all added right back, and the draft is resubmitted. And declined.

A parallel effort at Draft:Mohsin Hani Al-Bahrani is first speedied G3 as a hoax, creator User:Theporphyrymaster. It's then recreated by User:Mohsinhani, declined, and G7'd again. Another attempt gets copypasted by some account to Mohsin Hani Al-Bahrani, prodded, histmerged, moved back to Draft:Mohsin Hani Al-Bahrani, G13'd. I'm probably missing a few variant spellings.

Our current creator then pastes this draft yesterday to Mohsin Al-Bahrani. I moved it to the WP:COMMONNAME. And here we are.

They're actually not quite a SPA, as in October they had a brief side gig in spamming for keralahairtransplant.com.

Wildly off-topic with all this I guess. And of course, notability isn't contingent upon an article not being created by a sockfarm. But this businessman doesn't meet WP:BIO yet. Wikishovel (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing. Closing admin should consider the history mentioned above and [11] for possible SALT. // Timothy :: talk 09:06, 21 November 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 Garfield characters. (Pass the lasagna) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article only contains 3 sources, two of which are primary and not independent of the subject, and any reliable sources that I found online appear to be WP:TRIVIAL mentions. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to a list of Garfield characters. Odie is a major character in the strip and various animationsvand is generally notable. it should not be deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. Without non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, nothing is by our standards of notable. Read Wikipedia:Notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to track down sources but there's absolutely no good reason to delete an article about a major character in a major comic strip. Keep or redirect. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Garfield" entry of Comics Through Time has a paragraph on Odie on the page I could see. The Google preview of "In Search of ‘Dog’: Fictional Media Constructions of Dogs in the Leisure Environment" looks promising, but I have no access. Does anyone else (also possibly via this Research Gate page)? There's also a short paragraph at Every Dog Has Its Day. Totally Tubular '80s Toys has a brief description of the Odie plush toy which sprang from the comic strip. Daranios (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Garfield characters. There's something verifiable here worth WP:PRESERVEing, even if they are trivial mentions. The character might not have notability separate from the rest of the characters, but a character list is appropriate here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also a very brief but non-trivial comment also in "Incorporating cartoons in an academic library: Spicing up LibGuides graphically at East Carolina University", and a lot more in this ScreenRant article. I think the found secondary sources together are enough to write a non-stubby article, therefore fullfilling WP:WHYN. WP:ITSNOTABLE is thus no longer an issue. If that's not considered enough by the majority, I would obviously prefer a merge to List of Garfield characters to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I put little to no stock in Screen Rant when it comes to establishing notability, being to a large extent a listicle content farm, but it's pretty clear that merging or redirecting would be decent WP:Alternatives to deletion here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Can you try to write up something for reception? For now I am supportive of redirecting this because article as written fails WP:GNG but if there's something more, it might be different. At minimum, your efforts would be mergeable, so nothing would be wasted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: so nothing would be wasted - My edits from S.T.A.R. Labs have just been put out of sight through redirecting. You wouldn't perhaps be interested in suitably merging them while I put in new effort here? Will probably take a bit of time. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Merged. I have to say I expected a no consensus keep after your edit. We might have gotten it if someone pinged previous voters. Feel free to start a talk page discussion about restoring the article. I am a bit unsure what to do in this case (article has been improved near the end of AfD). You could ask at AN or such, to avoid making it look like you are challenging the close. Another option would be to ask the closer to relist and ping everyone... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Garfield characters per WP:ATD. No prejudice towards it becoming an article again if WP:GNG can be passed and the page rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 14 November 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 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Sheffield[edit]

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

Simply a list or directory of non-notable pubs. Mostly unsourced. Notable pubs, such as Kelham Island Tavern, have their own articles. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and attracts clutter. SilkTork (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Lists, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable local businesses. Notable pubs may be provided at List of pubs in the United Kingdom. Reywas92^Talk 06:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Reywas92's statement. WP:NOTDIR applies. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Refactoring the article as an overview of the topic, in the style of Pubs in Brighton, might be a way forward. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above is a good idea and that it should be done as soon as possible, but I am not up to the job. Someone in Sheffield?? Bduke (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the suggestion from Hassocks, though that would be a different page with a different name, and should have no impact on this AfD. What we are considering here is if this List of pubs in Sheffield, which has been problematic from inception in 2005, meets our inclusion criteria. What Hassocks is suggesting is creating an article on Pubs in Sheffield, which will be an article rather than a list, so will have a different focus, and a different structure. On looking back at the article history, I note that the list has been nominated for deletion soon after creation - the discussion closed as no consensus. Interesting to note that the keep comments centred on improving the article. The problem with "keep and clean up", is that the clean up is rarely done - here we are 18 years later, and despite people putting on tags saying they are concerned about the article, nobody has actually cleaned it up. We have nothing worthwhile to keep. Not the name, not the concept, not the layout, not the contents. The contents are a random selection of pubs, some of which no longer exist. It only lists three pubs in Hillsborough (S6 postcode), while the more useful Sheffield Pub Guide lists 18, and the comprehensive WhatPub lists 26. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear cut WP:NODIRECTORY violation. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have deleted my earlier comment. Clearly the idea of having an article on Pubs in Sheffield would be be much better than what we have here. Could someone closer to Sheffield than me do that? Bduke (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deprodded this hoping a discussion would come up with some ideas on how to better present the material, much of which is unsourced. There are books on Sheffield pubs so it likely is a valid topic for the encyclopedia. A list format could work but it would need its inclusion criteria defining more strictly than this article does. Rupples (talk) 06:29, 18 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Joseph Cousins[edit]

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

Stub BLP about twin brothers who were child actors. Neither twin appears to be notable. I cannot find more than brief mentions in reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete imdb urls are not enough for inclusion into wikipedia, but a proper searching for reliable sources might help. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:35, 1 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 14:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some critical notice of the pair 30 yrs on, [12] and [13]. Gsearch news brings up several articles about the pair. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That yahoo source ([2]) provides a bit of bio info, but the bloody-disgusting.com ([1]) ref is a single sentence mentioning the twins. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the yahoo ref to the article and revised the content to match the source. So far this is the only RS in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further coverage from Looper [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Oaktree b, I've added both sources to the article. I still don't think the twins are notable, but at least the article is in slightly better shape now and, if kept, has refs. Schazjmd (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 subjects directly and indepth meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing.

[15], interview in an article about Schwarzenegger

[16] where are they now with interview quotes from subject.

Ping me if sources meeting WP:BLP are found. // Timothy :: talk 09:16, 21 November 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 userfy‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of United States and Native American relations[edit]

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

I feel that this article is barebones and restates most of the things said in other articles. Therefore, it seems this article has no use on its own. I could consider a merger with another candidate article or put the sources into a different one. In short, this article is a big ol' nothing burger that states stuff that could be in another article if it isn't already. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. Polyamorph (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or Userfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE This spans 386 years of history in less than 25 entries. Select random incidents on varied topics in Native American history. There too many gaps of time inbetween entries. The years on the first five entries are 1629, 1675, 1675, 1705 and 1852 . It then leaps to 1954 and something to do with native American fishing jurisdiction. Next is 1966 and the arrest of comedian Dick Gregory for net fishing. Then 1968, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1977, Jimmy Carter in 1978. Six more entries that end in California Governor Jerry Brown in 2015. — Maile (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Draftify or Userfy- This could become a useful list if it gets completed with less gaps. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Walker[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't believe the predominantly passing mention and primary sources here pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; ambassadors are indeed not inherently notable. UK High Commissioners, however, often are. A quick search reveals enough for this man to be regarded notable. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 15:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UK High commissioners are not inherently notable. A search of ["Iain Walker" ambassador -wikipedia] found only primary sources like gov.uk or routine announcements. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @W.G.J., why would a UK high commissioner be notable when regular ambassadors are not? Isn't a high commissioner essentially just an ambassador to a Commonwealth country? Our High commissioner (Commonwealth) article says:
- "In the Commonwealth of Nations, a high commissioner is the senior diplomat, generally ranking as an ambassador, in charge of the diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth government to another."

Does this mean the high commissioner to Ghana is more notable than ambassadors to America, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, etc.?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not more notable. just a naming convention. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, my bad. I wrongfully interpreted "ambassador" in the original nomination as "diplomat", a member of a diplomatic envoy that is not by default the highest-ranking. However, I still do believe that the highest-ranking representatives, such as High Commissioners, do enjoy a particular notability but I understand that that could be put up to discussion. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 10:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of ambassadors/high commissioners. In fact many have been deleted LibStar (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Named and quoted, not WP:SIGCOV	1. "Nana Receives 4 Envoys". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Quote from article "A former Dundee man has spoken of his “cherished memories” after..." interview, fails WP:IS, WP:RS and does not have WP:SIGCOV about the subject	2. ^ Jump up to:a b Strachan, Graeme. "Dundee man spends five days hosting Duke and Duchess in Ghana". The Courier. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Speaker profile	Tech in Ghana Conference London 2020". techinghanaconference.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2019. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Appointment annoucement	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Iain Walker appointed new British High Commissioner to Ghana". Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always. 17 February 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Appointment annoucement	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f "Dundee man appointed High Commissioner to Ghana". Evening Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Primary	6. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Iain Walker". GOV.UK. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
No WP:SIGCOV about subject	7. ^ "UK High Commissioner to Ghana, Jon Benjamin set to leave in August - MyJoyOnline.com". www.myjoyonline.com. Retrieved 11 March 2021.

Ping me if sources meeting WP:BLP are found. // Timothy :: talk 09:25, 21 November 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 06:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Sargent[edit]

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

Not convinced this person meets requirements of WP:BIO - I can't see how it meets the standards set for creatives, plus the articles referenced are primarily about specific actions they've done, rather than establishing overall notability, Mike1901 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mike1901 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Transportation, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Independent article looks to be the best, until you open it and see it's about another person doing imitations of this fellow. BBC is the individual appearing in an ad with the transport secretary for the nation, fine, but nothing for GNG. Rest are cast lists and non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I understand the accessible toilets controversy and that being a big part of the article, but the rest is just a very thin resume of this person's accomplishments and professional potential. Doesn't make for a worthwhile article. Bl00velvet (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, and sources are either mentions or primary (and the New York Post). The disabled incident is unfortunately a regular occurrence worldwide and doesn't make him any more special because of his "fame" from making train announcements. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:40, 17 November 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 Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler. ✗plicit 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Party Minister of the NSDAP[edit]

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

I redirected this to Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler, but was reverted by the article creator because (like they said on my user talk page) "The Position still held power and was extremely important within Germany". In reality, the position was nominally held by one person, had no influence whatsoever, and more importantly as a consequence isn't notable enough to warrant a separate page. Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, and Germany. Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The position was quite literally able to appoint the highest position within the Reich, a Reichsleiter. The position still operated within it's capacity officially in stead of Hitler, as Goerring and Himmler were both declared traitors. Kecesi (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the page you redirected to had no information what so ever of the Party Minister position, to people who don't know the history of the Third Reich the position may be insignificant but it operated as essentially Fuhrer after Hitler's Death. Kecesi (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The position also appointed Gauleiters which were the Party leaders for designated Regions who also held authority over their own individual Volksstrum units. Kecesi (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last note Anwärter has it's own Wikipedia Page, there's a clear precedent set that a position that held the power to appoint a Reichsleiter, a position that only answers to the Fuhrer is relevant. Kecesi (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominee for the reasons stated. I understand the importance of the position but just one person held it.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure however, this was towards the end of the war and it held power over all the Gauleiters which also held power over their individual volksstrum units, not to mention this fed into the late war Himmler x Bormann Power Struggle. Kecesi (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. Also, agree not notable enough for a stand alone article, which in a practical sense would never be more than a stub, at best. Kierzek (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that and I respect it however, this just leads me to believe that you're ignoring the late war contributions as it still held power over all the Volksstrum, acted as de-facto Fuhrer and could appoint and remove Reichsleiters essentially giving the position Fuhrer-prinzip which was excersized. Kecesi (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also received independent coverage than from Hitler's Testament and hence my belief. Kecesi (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also transcripts of how it influenced the Volksstrum. Kecesi (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kecesi, I think the difference between your point of view and others’ here is summed up in the pronouns “it” and “he”. You see “it”, we see “him”.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Various Positions which were only held by one person have their own Wikipedia pages, there's a clear precedent that positions will extremely high amounts of power and importance even if held by one person can have their own article with relevant information Kecesi (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you this is a Minister Position WITH Portfolio as well, we cover the Reich Forest Master Position and it has it's own Article I don't see how this is relevant. Kecesi (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the Article was Reviewed does this mean it's suitable for Inclusion like Wikipedia states? Articles considered suitable for inclusion are marked as 'reviewed'? My apologies I'm a little confused. Kecesi (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, when an article is nominated for deletion (at AfD, like here), it gets automatically tagged as "reviewed": other reviewers don't need to check it, as it is already at a community discussion which will decide if it can stay or not (or gets redirected). Fram (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Kecesi (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The power that this ministerial position had was largely hypothetical, and power alone doesn't infer notability. Unless this has received independent coverage from Hitler's testament, redirect there.
Redirect: Agree with all of above, no value add with this page. Marleeashton (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Powers of the Position will be further clarified, the Roll it played towards the end of the War is clarified as well. I simply don't believe you've read the articles you want to redirect to. Kecesi (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others. The position was more an expression of Hitler's final delusions than an actual, functional office. Intothat darkness 15:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understand this if it held no power but for quite a bit of time it still acted to appoint Gauleiters and Reichsleiters not to mention that Gauleiters held immense control over their Volksstrum units. Kecesi (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is no indication that such appointments by Bormann took place. Curbon7 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There's no indication any of this existed anywhere other than in Hitler's mind. Considering this was signed in 29 April and Doenitz ordered military operations to cease on 7 May (and Bormann was likely killed on 2 May trying to flee the bunker/Berlin), any power this position might have exerted existed for no more than 8 days (more likely three or four at most given Bormann's demise). Intothat darkness 00:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is documentation of the Powers for the Parteiminister, not to mention the fact that the Ministerial Portfolio was quite literally the Party. Kecesi (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are Telegrams and Transcripts of this power being utilized. Kecesi (talk) 17:15, 19 November 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 13:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexee Trevizo[edit]

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

Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artesia, New Mexico infanticide case, which is why I declined @Wikishovel:'s PROD. No indication the virtual court case, which happened subsequent to the first AfD, has made this unfortunate incident nor the folks involved notable. Star Mississippi 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and New Mexico. Star Mississippi 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a WP:ONEEVENT. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a WP:ONEEVENT. Major BLP fail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 19 November 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 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Derian[edit]

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

I tagged this article about an artist and designer for notability in January this year as it was sourced to the artist's company's website and to one newspaper article, so I was not clear that he is notable under WP:NARTIST, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The sourcing has not improved since then. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added an interview in external links, but cannot find any independent, reliable coverage to add. Tacyarg (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Businesspeople, Visual arts, United States of America, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No reliable sources, fails WP:ARTIST. Derian appears to be a home goods manufacturer.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 November 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 Neo (Hungarian band). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-Tech Man, Hi-Tech World[edit]

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

The article doesn't contain sources (as of November 2023) to meet the notability guideline for music. While MusicBrainz does contain information about the album, it is a database, usually referred to as not resulting in notability, and MusicBrainz shows up only in the authority control list. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neo (Hungarian band): The only mention in coverage I found which might be of value is this brief Hungarian-language piece, though I only question its potential because I don't know the language and couldn't tell you if this is just a passing mention or not without a translation. Regardless, one source this brief is not anywhere near enough on its own, so without anything else I definitely don't see notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:53, 13 November 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. Withdrawal of nomination indicated by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tegenaria rhodiensis[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources can be found, no suitable pages to redirect or merge were found, and it also fails WP:V even more so than WP:N. Equal width (C) 10:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No suitable WP:BEFORE was done; multiple sources are trivially easy to find, added three. Valid species with clear taxonomic history. Suggest withdrawing this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the nominator, the relevant guidance is at WP:NSPECIES; basically valid species are invariably keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per WP:NSPECIES. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:NSPECIES with sources per Elmidae, contrary to the nomination statements. KoA (talk) 18:39, 13 November 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!} 07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kantipur Engineering College[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG and no secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I cannot find any reliable sources about this school. Clearly not suitable to have an article here. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. The main university's article is enough. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:58, 13 November 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm sacs[edit]

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

Recently created as a set index article, but only the first ~~two~~ (on second look, Spermatheca is a receptacle, not a sac) can really be described as such. The other items either don't describe a "sac" at all or are simply glands, some of which are somewhat childish references, not backed up by any formal or common nomenclature. Any ambiguity can be handled with a hatnote or see also entry. Polyamorph (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "somewhat childish" in referring to medical websites using vernacular language to interact with patients is a rather worrying form of denigration and elitism. Even if it were actual children's speech, children do use Wikipedia, so a children's language terminology would also be expected to be usable as search terms. "Sperm sac" can refer to whatever the people in the real world at large wish to call it as such. A reservoir would easily be a sac, and the other entries reservoirs. Fluid-filled cysts and vesicles are certainly "sacs". And whether informal culinary language [17][18] for milt is childish or not, it is used for addressing adults. Our article at milt calls it "sperm sacs" or "testes", which is the culinary usage. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2023

Spermatophore is a capsule of spermatozoa, which could be described as a 'sac' filled with sperm.

Spermatheca is a receptacle, not referred to as a 'sac' in scientific or common vernacular.

Milt generally refers to the seminal fluid itself, although it could refer also to the fish genitalia. Our article does not refer to this as a 'sac', although I acknowledge some sources do refer to them as such.

Epididymis is a tube.

Seminal vesicle, a gland not a sac.

Testes are organs, not sacs.

Scrotum contains the testes, it's not a bag of sperm!
The last few are where my childish comment originates, it is not elitism, it's just not the scientific or common vernacular that is commonly used to describe these biological entities. It would be inaccurate to describe several of them as a 'sac' and for those that are 'sacs' the specific term 'sperm sac' is not an accurate description. Polyamorph (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"sperm sac" is also only used in the milt article, where it mentions that the testes are the sperm sacs, and not the first two articles, where the term does not appear. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which somewhat illustrates my point that this disambiguation page is not necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather illustrates that without this page, people will not find the articles that contain the content they are looking for, especially, those looking up information on their medical issues. Or the people wishing to explore the first two topics on the page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't redirect from every conceivable term someone might use for something if that term is not mentioned at the target page. Polyamorph (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "sperm sac" to refer to such is referenced in the page in question. A tube can be sac like, just as a river becomes a lake before being a river again, where the tube becomes enlarged into a bulge. The stomach is a sac, is used like a sac as a water bottle when removed and processed, but is also a tube, as material flows from one end to the other. The storage area for matured and maturing sperm is called the sperm sac, before ejaculation, as indicated, since it is a storage, as such, like a sac. Organs and glands can store what they produce before being discharged, such as with the semen vesicles; such as with testicles, when they are engorged as in milt. Storage areas themselves are sometimes referred to as sacs. It is elitist to not acknowledge the common people and their usage of language, not the prescriptivist usage of the word "sac". Many things in the world are like that, where the specific grammarian use isn't what people actually use it for. A distended epididymis, the spermatocele, is more sac like, as it is a bulge in the tube. As medical material for the public describe such parts of the body and conditions as sperm sacs, then people would look on Wikipedia for such as well. The scrotum does contain stored sperm, and is referred to as a sperm-sac in vulgar speech, per the reference. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input from more editors is needed to form consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but turn into a proper disambiguation page. Seems to meet the usefulness criterion of WP:DAB. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. Per WP:R#DELETE condition #8. This could serve to be useful as an actual disambiguation page given the usage of "sperm sac" in some vernaculars as other users have noted, though it would need significant clean-up to fall more in line with MOS:DAB. -KJGinger (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your account is younger than this AfD page, were you previously an IP editor because you appear to be fairly well versed in aspects of wikipedia users usually take longer to get to grips with. In any case, can you be more specific about what "clean-up" needs to be done? Some of the entries are not appropriate and should be deleted entirely. In particular, if the term is not used in the target article then they shouldn't really be linked without strong evidence that it is common terminology. Polyamorph (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, while I appreciate the suspicion, I'd never made any edits before this account, I just take well to how Wiki defines/gives context to its rules I guess. As to being more specific about the cleanup, the descriptions are probably most egregious. They largely seem to attempt to say sperm and sac as frequently as possible, and I agree with a point you made earlier in the discussion that they're childish. As an example, "Spermatheca" should probably read something more like "female reproductive organ found primarily in insects". RE: your last sentence, I was not aware of this policy, but if it's the case, then I'd agree there's less reason to keep this. KJGinger (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, re: your last commemt. It's point #8 in WP:R#DELETE, although that refers to redirects. This isn't mentioned in WP:DAB, so possibly requires some input from someone with more experience with DAB pages, although whats a DAB page if not a list of redirects from the same term? Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2NumForIce: Pinging the original creator of the redirect. It seems they haven't been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 13 November 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Rana[edit]

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

Not notable actor, seems like does not pass even WP:GNG. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Punjab. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a notable actress, having played a notable role of an antagonist in her debut show and the main lead in a recent show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove (talk • contribs) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The subject is a notable actress and required citations were provided when the article was initially provided. It had been noticed that someone is keeping on deleting the citations repeatedly. Action must be taken against the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote multiple times. I have struck the second. It has been explained many times why the sources are removed. You need to become familiar with acceptable sourcing, which you are not. Continuing to use them and call for sanctions against others is disruptive. Star Mississippi 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to understand acceptable sources and found that the sources that was removed belonged to that published by Times of India, which is considered one of the most reliable source. Smsslove (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea and therefore no opinion implied about the rest of this conversation but Note about the Times of India: Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable".). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she has one lead role in a notable series, and that is well sourced, and various roles of much lesser significance but could pass WP:NACTOR though. If judged insufficient, at the very least redirect to Junooniyatt#Main for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pass in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 09:52, 15 November 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 teams and organizations in DC Comics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Communications (comics)[edit]

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

"a fictional American multinational media corporation in the DC Comics universe". Pure plot summary + list of media it appears in, mostly unreferenced (one passing mention in a minor media article, few footnotes to comics and one to YouTube). WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG, my BEFORE fails to show anything useful. Best ATD is to redirect this to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, News media, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have altered the nominator's rationale to fix a formatting/layout error (i.e. an incomplete link syntax) that was causing {{subst:afd2}} to not do anything. I have no opinion with regard to the article itself. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As said, the sources are primary and a youtube video (not reliable sources.). Obvious WP:FANCRUFT.
Industrial Insect (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than closing this as a Soft Delete, please consider nominator's suggestion to redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. I found nothing to suggest that the subject is independently notable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreliable. I wouldn't object to a redirect but there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 14 November 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 00:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kike Tropical Fruits Factory[edit]

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

A fruit processing factory in Uganda, signally fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Uganda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenilia Press[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 13 November 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!} 07:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 5472[edit]

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

This article is REFBOMBed, but lacks actual notability. The only non-trivial coverage seems to be the website of the organization that owns the locomotive - and even that only amounts to a paragraph. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pi.1415926535
https://www.ncry.org/about/collection/diesel/southern-pacific-5472/	The organization owns the locomotive		~ The source discusses the subject directly, but not in great detail (one table and one bullet list)	✘ No
https://sp5472.ncry.org/facts.htm	The organization owns the locomotive		~ The source discusses the subject directly, but not in great detail (one table and one paragraph)	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=7YqeCim1yegC&dq=Southern+Pacific+5472&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q=Southern%20Pacific%205472&f=false			Two sentences	✘ No
Diesel Era November/December 1996			? Does not appear to be online. The article was 13 pages about the locomotive class in general (500 locomotives); it's not clear how much detail about this specific locomotive is included.	? Unknown
https://books.google.com/books?id=JbG3AAAAIAAJ&q=Southern+Pacific+SD9+5472			Brief mention	✘ No
SP 1987/88 Motive Power Pictorial		? Per [19], Shine is the owner/operator of the press, so this is a self-published source.	A few sentences	✘ No
https://ncry.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=541047&module_id=137782&actr=4	The organization owns the locomotive. This source is a duplicate of source 1.		~	✘ No
https://studylib.net/doc/7301241/equipment-roster---niles-canyon-railway	? Appears to be produced by the organization that owns the locomotive, but no authorship information is present.	? Document hosted on a file sharing site, with no indication of previous publication	~ One paragraph	? Unknown
https://www.thedieselshop.us/SurvivorsEmdRoad.HTML		? Self-published	Brief mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (partial) to Niles Canyon Railway with salient points re: construction/ownership Djflem (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated when declining this at AfC in September, there really hasn't been any demonstration of notability. The Diesel Era source is the only one that might give points towards GNG, but considering it was about the entire class of hundreds of locomotives, I strongly doubt we have any credit towards GNG here. As such, I am a delete. I would not object to a redirect to Niles Canyon Railway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one of many articles by the same IP which shows clear GAMING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per nom. I couldn't find any signs that it meets of WP:GNG. I would also suggest making it harder to resurrect given the behaviour detailed in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP. TarnishedPath^talk 07:25, 15 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffee Burger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson & Bell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Illinois, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 13 November 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 deleted‎ by Star Mississippi (talk · contribs) as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of of https://www.latsis-foundation.org/eng/scholarships", as noted below. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Greece. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, Science, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a G12 which I've just tagged. It'scopyvio and has been since the first edit Star Mississippi 12:51, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JSM Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Daviess Conservation Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 13 November 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 Withdraw‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft Development Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 13 November 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quinni-Con[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD.Tagged for notability since 2018. Unable to find sources. A small college convention with almost no indication of importance, fails WP:NEVENT. Charcoal feather (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga, Events, and United States of America. Charcoal feather (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source I could fine that did in-depth coverage was a college newspaper, and only one of those articles covered the convention and wasn't written like a press release. There's just not enough to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any of the necessary coverage. Nothing in the way even after extensive searching that would indicate independent notability. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not seeing any quality secondary sourcing that shows this convention meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 06:02, 18 November 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 Withdraw‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Turner & Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 13 November 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 Withdraw‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J.A. Woollam Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Engineering, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 13 November 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 Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs.‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ.networks Press Agency[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Companies, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Keland Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. Suggest merging any useful info. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Management, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Investors Mutual Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Management, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intrafish[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, News media, Companies, Environment, Singapore, Norway, England, Chile, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Labmate Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Humic Substances Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, Environment, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Business Initiatives[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, Education, Technology, Computing, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Medical and Dental Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Archaeology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interfaculty Committee Agraria[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Biology, Europe, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Movement for Monetary Reform[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Economics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Education, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Technology, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ihavandhoo Health Centre[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE-ISTO[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IFChina Original Studio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Theatre, Photography, History, Organizations, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 13 November 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 00:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaisravanath Raman Namboothiri[edit]

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Hinduism, and Kerala. PepperBeast (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:17, 6 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!} 04:40, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyland Fox[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HPI Groupe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Valley Islamic Community Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 13 November 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 Newsmax. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humanix Books[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Conservatism, Health and fitness, Politics, Companies, Education, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Newsmax, where it does not currently appear to be mentioned... but it probably should be. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperoptic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra Ventures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Business, Companies, Sports, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Motorcycles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 13 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autobesity[edit]

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

This article has very little information, is based mostly on subjective opinion, and is on a topic that is not notable. WP:NRV WP:GNG Joseph Zadeh (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Joseph Zadeh (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Criticism of SUVs is what I would suggest. Recent articles in places like The Guardian make this a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be expanded, but this is a growing phenomenon and the discussion is reaching new parts of the globe. --DaddyCell (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of SUVs. This isn't really it's own thing. The growing phenomenon is just that there are more SUVs and SUVs are bad, which is already covered. No need for a separtate article here. Reywas92^Talk
Keep - Seems to meet the WP:GNG. The article seems to be referring to a broader phenomenon affecting the entire automobile market and not just SUVs. High WP:POTENTIAL for this article to be expanded over time if sources keep covering the subject in the way that they have been. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Criticism of SUVs needs to be reworked; almost everything in the article applies to pick-up trucks or the market as a whole as well. I just do not see this as a really separate topic and should be integrated into the main article explaining how the criticisms are becoming more relevant and how the criticisms are being addressed; it could be split if necessary but I don't think leaving this stub on a neologism for hypothetical expansion is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 05:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Merge and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This could use a move to a less interesting title, but the trend towards bigger cars a notable-enough phenomenon to warrant coverage in secondary sources about energy efficiency in general, e.g. this one from the IEA. It is not just about criticizing SUVs; this trend is also affecting ordinary cars and pickup trucks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:47, 20 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotlamp Productions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IGlue[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Companies, Technology, Websites, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Electronics Engineers of the Philippines[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, Technology, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for the Study and Integration of Graphical Heritage Techniques[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, Education, Archaeology, Technology, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Structural Research[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, Economics, Mathematics, Social science, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InsideOut US[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. Merge to parent article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Germany, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Unit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 November 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. Withdrawing as nom. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Philanthropy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's extremely widely cited and well respected for accurate and unbiased news about the charitable sector. As DGG said in the previous AFD six years ago, "major resource in its field. It is difficult to use the GNG for periodicals or serious websites." And as Arxiloxos said, "As its steady citation by other reliable sources shows, this has become a significant source for the charitable sector, and thus passes criteria #3, #4 and #5 of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals." -- Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If DGG thought it was notable, that's good enough for me. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:12, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Innovate BC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for International Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InRule Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, Software, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indxx[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Delhi, Czech Republic, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inphonex[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InFORM Decisions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Rheumatology Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indo Global Social Service Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Education, Economics, Environment, Social science, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Fasteners Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Gay Forum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. This article has been here since 2004. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Curators International[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. Article written by subject. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 13 November 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 Kevin Willmott. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hodcarrier Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kevin Willmott — Maile (talk) 03:56, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HMF Engineering[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiltz Squared Media Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. This article has been here since 2007. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 13 November 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 03:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Histology Group of Victoria[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. This article has been here since 2006. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Medicine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and could not find any coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar that this does not meet WP:ORG. Kazamzam (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it didn't have it's home page as an external link I'd be tempted to slap a speedy on it. Not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 17 November 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdraw as nom for now, per User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs. (non-admin closure) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hire Association Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 13 November 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!} 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Finn-Henry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of refs but they are from poor sources/tangential mentions. Zero WP:SIGCOV from any quality source. The article was created by an WP:SPA who made it and left. Has WP:PROMO, likely also a WP:COI case. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article author) meets WP:GNG. Bronze medal at the 2017 IFSC Youth World Championships, medal at the North American Cup Series, has broken the Canadian national record twice, and some useful contributions as a researcher. Enough to prove the notability. Mulerd (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even participated recently: Sport climbing at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's speed. Mulerd (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast bulk of all speed climbing athletes are non-notable (and hence have no WP:BLPs), including most of the World Men's Speen Champions and World Women's Speed Champions. Michael Finn-Henry (who I suspect wrote his own BLP), is nowhere near being a World Speed Climbing Champion (not even in the top 20). Regardless, to meet WP:GNG we must have some WP:SIGCOV in quality WP:RS(es), but he has none. Sorry, but WP:TOOSOON at this moment in time. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks depth of coverage in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass and his accomplishments don't merit a WP:BIO pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 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 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connectors for car audio[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. This article doesn't assert any notability of the topic or the laundry list of random things lincluded. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and also a total lack of secondary coverage that isn't trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 14 November 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 03:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HMDW Architects[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not quite enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, unfortunately, conservation architects rarely create anything original themselves and there's very little evidence of any significant coverage about HMDW Architects (who appear to have recently changed their name). The awards seems to be minor. The BBC article about the refurbed cinema doesn't even mention the architects. Sionk (talk) 13:02, 13 November 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 03:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristína Panáková[edit]

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

The subject, a Slovakian women's footballer, has appeared for her respective national team, but fails WP:GNG due to insufficient coverage. The closest thing to SIGCOV is 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 15 November 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!} 04:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metra Electronics[edit]

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

Non notable company ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holding this to the same standard as biographies of living persons and articles at AFC: There has never been (apart from a whole load of external hyperlinks back in the 2011 revisions, that are now broken except for the 1 that turns out to be a corporate press release) anything but pointers to the company's own various WWW sites here. Not a single independent reliable source cited in 12 years. (And the deleted revisions turn out to be company promotional blurb written in the first person.) This wouldn't meet our standards for draft articles these days, and those can get deleted after 6 months. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:50, 13 November 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 03:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High Frequency Economics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Economics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 13 November 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 restore redirect‎. There seems to be a consensus here that sourcing presented doesn't meet notability criteria. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EyeWiki[edit]

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

Back in 2015, an article on EyeWiki was merged to List of medical wikis for lack of notability. Recently the redirect has been overwritten with a new article, but this new article does not show that EyeWiki passes either WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. The article currently cites 5 sources - 1, 4, and 5 are all to EyeWiki itself. Cite 3 is to one of EyeWiki's parent organizations. Cite 2 was written by EyeWiki's deputy editor in chief. I have done some searches and only turned up trivial mentions aside from these. Note that these searches are fairly difficult because many hits will be citations to copies of documents hosted on EyeWiki. Since there is no established notability here, I think this should probably be turned back into a redirect. I'm starting this AFD rather than boldly redirecting based on a rocky user talk page discussion I had with the new article's author that leads me to expect that would meet with opposition - so community consensus should be sought here. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sourcing in peer-reviewed journals [20], [21], [22] and many others. We're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One of those is the one written by EyeWiki's deputy editor in chief mentioned above, and the other two are the trivial mentions I alluded to - they include EyeWiki in some rankings but contain no substantial information about the site. If there are 'many others' I could not find them. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The second two do discuss how EyeWiki is used by health professionals to treat/diagnose conditions; ok they aren't extensive, but they show how the site is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This falls into the second category as well [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del fails GNG. - Altenmann >talk 21:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in the same boat as MrOllie. There are no independent sources. Whilst Virtual Mentor (as was) is peer-reviewed, the byline of that article outright tells us that the author was (at the time) EyeWiki's deputy editor in chief. I've looked for others and — likewise — I too cannot find things independently documenting EyeWiki, only places where people cite articles on EyeWiki. The articles pointed at by Oaktree b have general conclusions and don't say much about any of the individual WWW sites, and if we were applying Project:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) we'd have to (ironically) point out that both were single case reports using one single article from each WWW site: low on the reliability scale. The irony is that EyeWiki probably qualifies as a source worth considering, with identifiable authors with identifiable credentials writing in their fields of expertise, but it doesn't qualify for an article because no-one apart from the people involved have documented the project itself. I cannot find anything to satisfy the criterion of multiple non-trivial good sources that are independent of the subject, which is older than EyeWiki is. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would this qualify under notability for journals? If you go to the second page of Gscholar results, you see that it's listed in GScholar as several "articles" are peer-reviewed? I mean the wiki articles there are used as scientific papers, indexed by Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a journal. Even if it were, attempts to establish a notability guideline for journals have failed to gather consensus. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a bit of SIGCOV in a newspaper: [24] —siroχo 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I get a blurred image with the title "Preview unavailable" and a hint that this is about some lawyers getting a commercial rating from Thomson Reuters. (There are lots of "X named Super Lawyer" articles about.) What on Earth has that to do with EyeWiki at all? Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It's an archive of multiple short articles. I believe you should have access to this article via WP:TWL. Here's the most relevant bits:
  Local ophthalmologist Dr. J. Louis Pecora, MD, Clinical Associate Professor (Retired) of Ophthalmology at Syracuse's State University of New York Upstate Medical Center, published a 10-year survey through a collaboration with EyeWiki. The survey investigates relationships between age, activity, blood sugar and medication habits, as they relate to the occurrence of eye hemmorrhage. Dr. Pecora has long practiced opthalmology here in the Southern Tier -- he's now in his fifth decade.
  
  EyeWiki is an ophthalmic wiki where ophthalmologists, non-ophth physicians, patients and the public can view an eye encyclopedia written by ophthalmologists, one that covers the vast spectrum of eye disease, diagnosis, and treatment. The wiki is a collaboration between the American Academy of Ophthalmology and 16 other leading American and international eye-health societies.
  
  —siro χ o 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has strong presence in Google Trends --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What has that got to do with anything? We need sources, not google searches. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect The "Google Trends" argument is irrelevant, the sourcing just isn't substantial enough to warrant a whole page, and unlike the case of academic journals, there's no selective index for websites along the lines of Scopus. Not everyone would endorse the argument that being included in a selective index means that a publication is significant enough that we ought to cover it, but here, the argument can't even be made in the first place. This is a typical example of a topic best covered in an article with a more broad scope. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect for lack of the in-depth independent coverage needed by WP:GNG. We have a problem also typical in academic journals, that the people who write about these things are typically not people independent from the subject and do not publish them in venues independent from the subject. The two most in-depth sources are not independent: "EyeWiki, Do You Wiki?" is in a magazine published by the sponsoring organization, and "The EyeWiki Initiative" is written by someone who is listed as deputy editor-in-chief (also maybe one of the founders) of EyeWiki. That leaves only the AAPOS source, which I don't think is in-depth enough to support an article by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Insufficient third-party sources to establish this as a notable standalone topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 13 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mable Lu Miao[edit]

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

Highly promotional and no real independent establishment of notability with secondary WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Business, Education, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are twelve books listed; what has the nominator done to check that they lack reviews, especially not in English? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thus far I have found three books with reviews, one of them with multiple reviews in academic journals. As I suspect there are more, I will keep working on this one. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been unable to find additional reviews. She appears in the Chinese media, but beyond Google translate I don't have the ability to evaluate those or find new sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The multiple reviews for multiple books now added to the article are enough for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR for me but it's only weak because the number is still low and most of them are for an edited volume rather than an authored work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @David Eppstein: I am a bit unclear how edited volumes should count towards WP:NAUTHOR since that clearly doesnt seem to be the spirit of the guidelines. In most fields I am aware of, the editor of a book (and I have seen this process from the inside) selects multiple people to contribute and usually contributes a single chapter to the book themselves, which is generally as long as a single journal article. Therefore editing a book is very different from writing a book since editing one basically involves the conceptual work of identifying a theme but letting people express their own thoughts (usually there is very little editorial input on the text itself and the main contribution is selecting the contribution and contributing author to cover a topic in breadth and depth). Still, I would argue that the contribution for an edited volume is a bit more than a journal article but nowhere near comparable to a original book. I am therefore somewhat skeptical in "bending" the NAUTHOR rules to apply to editors of books. Yes, being asked to edit a book can be a sign of distinction but not a very strong signal, especially given the large number of books being published. --hroest 13:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the three reviewed books is edited. The other two are authored. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user "Amigao" has been publicly flagged as editing Wikipedia entries with an anti-China bias at an industrial scale. Although the complaints were not made by the best reputable sources, the description is worth considering.

The contributions by "Amigao" are enormous - the user edits tons of stuff on a daily basis! So is that a shared account, which violates Wikipedia rules? You can also look at the talk page of "Amigao", which lists many well-established grievances against the user. Therefore it's no surprise that "Amigao" initiates a deletion of a Wikipedia entry that doesn't reflect badly on China. 74.211.96.51 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with David Eppstein comments above. I think the sources in the article (eg: Book reviews [25], [26]) put this past the finish line. In addition no one has indicated they did a search for non-English sources for reviews of their work as brought up by Espresso Addict. Looking at the article, everything seems sourced reasonably for a BLP. The noms comment regarding this being "Highly promotional" is very questionable. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 21 November 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 03:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J O Hambro Capital Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Management, Singapore, England, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 13 November 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 03:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gosfield North Communications Co-operative[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 13 November 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 03:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Trebilcock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTADVERT. Blatantly created by User:Frasermarketing which was blocked indef May 20, 2014. For some reason the article was not deleted. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP based on referencing not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find anything that could be used to establish notability for this firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't the high ranking make them notable?

Panther999 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it would not. Same way a company isn't notable for simply being publicly traded or being list on Inc. 5000. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 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. I don't see a consensus here and there is disagreement over whether or not the article meets WP:LISTN. This might warrant a return trip to AFD at some point in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One sprint winners[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Also WP:NOTSTATS. A seperate article for this is undue. T v x1 08:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. T v x1 08:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep. The more time passes, the more significant this article will be, because more sprints will be held and we have an article list of Grand Prix winners as well. They will be retained for at least the 2024. 212.164.64.246 (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just your crystall ball assumption of the future. This concept is still very much in an experimental phase and there is no guarantee it will be retained after 2024. Nothing what you say adresses the fact that it fails WP:LISTN. T v x1 16:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sprint races have been held has no bearing on its notability. And if it did the correct approach would be to delete this list and re-create it when enough sprints have been held for notability to be met. SSSB (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could potentially merge this into a new section of List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, but otherwise, I would !vote to delete per the nomination. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Because Formula One Sprint winners are not Formula One Grand Prix winners. Merging these winners together would create confusion.

That being said, my point should be iterated more strongly; Sprint races are a part of a Grand Prix weekend. But not part of a Grand Prix itself. 2A02:A448:B759:1:F5CD:863B:5E09:367B (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick google search shows that WP:NLIST is clearly not satisified. SSSB (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fails NLIST completely, but meets WP:CLN as a navigation list; as the IP mentions, as time passes this will become more useful.. // Timothy :: talk 00:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLN is an editing guideline. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether a list can exist or not. The second part of your argument is false crystallball assumption of the future. The concept is under heavy scrutiny and there is no guarantee it will persist. T v x1 09:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is an editing guideline. See WP:AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 09:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, If it's a valid navigational list, it meets NLIST (just not the general criterion of NLIST): Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. —siro χ o —siro χ o 03:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t though. This is not nor has ever been the purpose of these lists at WP:F1. T v x1 08:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For now, I would be in favour of keeping this page. The sprint format is still new and has been tweaked since its introduction, to have more of a presence in F1. I believe that this format is here to stay, as Liberty Media seems to be very much in favour of incorporating it into the sport long term, as shown by recent discussions to further improve the format for 2024. However, if the sprint format does get removed, then I would be in favour of deletion of this page. McLarenMercedes22 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s just not how Wikipedia works.T v x1 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list has a relevant navigational function as embraced by WP:LISTN. Do we have another way of identifying these winners? If not, it is a particularly important list. If the Formula One article (which is excessively long) became split to create a new one on the sprints, we could consider having this list as part of that. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a way of indentifing these winners because the sources do not show what they should be identified in this way. Or in other words, the sources do not show that winning a sprint warrants any identification of the kind that would support keeping this list as a navigational aid. No source (that I have seen) identifies sprint winners, so we shouldn't either. SSSB (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
realisticly this should be expanded to a list of f1 sprint races not just winners—blindlynx 20:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don’t even have such a list for all grands prix.T v x1 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see editors with strong arguments on both sides of this issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving the standings of this article to the 'sprint' section of the F1 racing article? I mean move part of this article to this section. By the way, a good (possibly good) source -- https://racingnews365.com/sprint-racing-f1 -- 212.164.64.246 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an appropriate place to put it. I would be against putting this list anywhere, but if we had to merge it, the only place I can think of where it would fit and make sense is in a sub-section of List of Formula One Grand Prix winners - but like I said, I am opposed to keeping this anywhere (in it's own article, or tacked onto another). SSSB (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRUFT. Information on total Sprint wins may be relevant, but not in its own article. Svartner (talk) 16:09, 16 November 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!} 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esqyr[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Minnesota. Skynxnex (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the former president of Esqyr, and yes, it should be deleted. At the time, it was notable: it was the first public benefit corporation focused on test prep, and served a dozen schools across the country. We donated thousands to orgs that helped reform certain ABA policies, which was also notable.

Still, the bar exam will change soon and our little effort was a nice footnote in how bar prep changed over the past 10 years. It shouldn't be a separate entry, however. Chris hhh99 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 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!} 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESTEI[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about it through a web search, and has absolutely no significance. Per nominator, this article fails notability, etc. Explodicator7331 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 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 delete‎. CSD A7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ConantLeadership[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTADVERT. A 3-sentence article telling us it's a for-profit organization, and then conveniently provides a link to it's web site. — Maile (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. A7 for this one as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:13, 15 November 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!} 03:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liāna Rožaščonoka[edit]

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

The subject has appeared for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage, failing WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 15 November 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. While there is disagreement as to the reliability of some of the cited sources, there is general agreement that enough reliable reviews are presence to establish notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same sourcing concerns as the prior AfD, no indication he meets N:MUSIC Star Mississippi 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belarus. Star Mississippi 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not seeing any genuinely independent coverage in WP:RS. These contrived 'reviews' are likely pay-for-play.-KH-1 (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion was mostly about one bad source, and there was a lack of sources (a year and half ago). Consensus was "neither the quality nor the quantity are sufficient". There were just two WP:RS, now it's nine, the article is sourced a lot better, and we have reliable sources to choose from, which I mentioned below.

References 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 are WP:RS from WP:A/S list. Let's choose the best WP:THREE and estimate them.

Let's take a look at these three for example:

14 from The Source: 8 paragraphs article, seven of them are in-depth review of a specific composition (Sunswept). Sha be Allah talks about rhythmic structure, using silence as a spesific technique, about weaknesses such as synth choise and melodies. Pretty solid review.

15 from MusicTimes: 9 paragraphs reviewing the composition (Sunswept). Here as well, we can see full detailed review of this track. David Thompson talks about harmonic progression, rhythmic elements, potential areas of improvement such as adding more levels of instrumentation or experimental elements to make it more unique, or about using space and synths between each other, vocals and etc.

12 from AllHipHop: Here we can see not only giving a closer look, but a critical look at another composition (Fortuna). We can see suggestions for improvement such as repetitive bass, layering and etc. We can pay attention to the editorial comments like "the structure of the track does not quite fit the typical radio format, mainly due to its lengthy intro", about layering again and etc.

WP:MUSICBIO says, that "Notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.". If these three WP:RS convinced you, then this article belongs wikipedia. Roxy177 (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing—based on WP:RS analysis done above by Roxy177— that the article itself does a good job at demonstrating notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC) stricken, see below microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts over the legitimacy of some of these reviews. Sha be Allah (ref #14) previously published another "review" of Pyti's music [27], which turned out to be plagiarized from several other sources (see previous AfD). The other sources are not without issues either.-KH-1 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to reconsider new sources, please? Because, what if your "doubts" are wrong? I personally always try to rely on facts. That's why I metnioned above all new reviews from WP:RS list that have been presented since the previous AfD. (I just analyzed three, which are quite in-depth reviews, there are seven new different reviews from WP:RS in total). And deleting only based on a previous AfD is kind of unfair. Roxy177 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's... fishy. I'm going to strike my !keep as I no longer have confidence in it, but I can't say I endorse !delete here either. What's going on with the other sources? microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck on this. I have to say, I think the thrust of the argument for N on the article page itself is two sentences at the end of the biography section. Sha be Allah wrote 3 of the 9 citations in that section (as an aside, raising some red flags for wikipuffery or overcitation). @Roxy177: you keep citing WP:RS but the only claim to WP:N isn't WP:V if it has been established previously by consensus that the author for one-third of that part of the article isn't reliable, despite the writing appearing in an outlet that has been described as generally reliable, then I think N fails. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: The previous consensus was that just one article is unreliable. (not 3 of the 9, neither that the author nor the source are no longer reliable) My point is that the new reviews from Sha be Allah deserve attention and trust, because they are different. (for example ref #14 I mentioned is exactly a serious review) This is a specific review of a specific composition, meticulous, without general phrases and fluff. Sigcov? Besides, there are 6 more sources left. Roxy177 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just rewatched sources and the article itself again and I'm going to say that my !vote is still !keep. Because as far as those sources are concerned, they are independent and reliable. they all together seem fit, alongside with the analysis of the sources (per WP:THREE) that I have done above.

If we don't consider a bad source from previous AfD, subject's notability will not be greatly lost from this, this is the point (we can check that by simply removing the sentence "Sha Be Allah from The Source compared Pyti's work to artists such as AVICII, Juice WRLD, and Diplo", which this particular source is supporting). There are still different reviews of different subject's works in various reliable sources. Roxy177 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are several sources that seem good enough to meet notability, including The Source, Music Times and AllHipHop. He has 2 or 3 articles in each, but per the rules the duplicate publications should count as one, but I feel there is still enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO.Royal88888 (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Royal88888, please cite the sources you are speaking of even if they are present in the article for quick inspection. dxneo (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Royal88888 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A formal source analysis would be useful here. And stating that sources are "likely pay-for-play" is less than certain, it sounds like a suspicion rather than evidence that should determine whether or not an article should be deleted. If sources, currently or found during this discussion, fulfill Wikipedia's guideline on music sources, that should be sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that saying "likely pay-for-play" without providing reasoning or assertion how they decided this to be the case, should not be a valid reason that they are Pay-for-play. In my opinion, the following articles are the best ones

- The source: Review of Pyti, Focus & Fortuna, Deep dive into...

- AllHipHop: A look into Pytis Latest 5 Singles, Focus review, Fortuna

- Music times: Dubstep, Sunswept Royal88888 (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: all 3 publications have been verified to be reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Royal88888 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article, he is a very famous musician in Belarus. 31.31.104.235 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a formal source analysis. The following sources are independent and reliable (see WP:A/S). And as for coverage, let's take a look:

[28] - 12 paragraphs in total, 2-3 paragraphs for each of several songs.

[29] - 7 paragraphs dedicated to a specific song (Focus), talking about notable techniques, rhythmic challenges, layering and distorted sound effects.

[30] - 8 paragraphs article, seven of them are really in-depth review of a specific composition (Sunswept). talking about rhythmic structure, verses, drops, outro. Almost every paragraph contains compostion's weaknesses. Pretty solid review.

[31] - 9 paragraphs reviewing the composition (Sunswept). talking about harmonic progression, rhythmic elements, potential areas of improvement such as adding more levels of instrumentation or experimental elements, or about using synths and space between each other, vocals and etc.

[32] - 8 paragraphs dedicated to a specific song (Fortuna), a critical look. We can see suggestions for improvement such as repetitive bass, layering and etc. We can pay attention to the editorial comments like "the structure of the track does not quite fit the typical radio format, mainly due to its lengthy intro", about layering again and etc.

[33] - again primary subject. 5 paragraps article, reviewing two compositions.

[34] - 15 paragraphs in total: 5 paragraphs of general words, 2-3 paragraphs for each of several songs (6-7 in total), talking more about the artistic image of the compositions rather than the purely technical part, such as synthesizers and instruments.

[35] - 9 paragraphs reviewing two compositions, 4-5 for each. talking about a moment when the singer joins in the mix, about lyrics, about mixing genres, how the artist plays with song's dynamics and tempo.

[36] - a bad source. has been discussed. (see previous AfD)

With all that said, there are enough different verifiable sources to keep the article. 8 out of 9 WP:RS comply with rules on music sources, the best three of them (per WP:THREE) are 14, 15, 12, as was the case in my quick analysis above. Roxy177 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is evidence to show that all the authors involved in these reviews have history of questionable conduct.

The plagiarism from Sha be Allah is pretty blatant, so I would have serious reservations about trusting any subsequent reviews. I also noticed plagiarism (or at least very close paraphrasing) by "David Thompson", the author of all the reviews on Musictimes. Here's one example:


An Idiot's Guide to EDM Genres (Complex - Oct 2017)	REVIEW: PYTI is Showing The Other Side of Dubstep (Musictimes Mar 2023)
While the term "EDM" has been a buzz term for the last few years, electronic dance music has been here for decades. And no matter how you slice it, we can't see the term EDM and lump every style and artist that puts out electronic music into one pot. It does a disservice to the individuals making the music, and the people who have been documenting the music.	Although EDM has been a trendy term in recent years, Electronic Dance Music has been around for decades. The diversity of styles is very wide and differentiated; no matter how you look at it, we cannot lump all genres and artists into one group. This does not satisfy the people who are dedicated to making this kind of music as well as those who have been documenting the evolution of this movement.
Contrary to popular belief, dubstep was not directly born from a love of dub music; it started as a darker, more experimental take on the 2-step sound that was running through London in the late 1990s. Clocking in at 140BPM, the early sound of dubstep was far from the aggressive tracks that are associated with the genre today. Early incarnations of dubstep are over a decade old, but the sound really started to grow in 2005	It started out as a darker, more experimental take. At 140 BPM, the sound of dubstep was far from the aggressive tracks that are associated with the genre today. The earliest incarnations of dubstep date back more than 10 years, but the sound really started to grow in 2005

I have to go, but I will have more to say on this shortly.-KH-1 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you meant when you said that there are sources that are likely "pay-for-play"? As for the bad source by Sha be Allah, that's what I wrote above in my analysis - bad source. God only knows how the authors write their articles, but this is not a reason not to count good reviews, there are enough of them here. You did a good job analyzing the source, but how does this relate to the subject's music? What you discovered. This is not plagiarism, but it seems like a paraphrase, I agree. But the sentence "dubstep is an aggressive, dark, experimental style of music, with a 140 bpm, and it began to grow in 2005" does not mean that the source is bad, or unreliable, or "pay-to-play". This is history. And if you type it into Google, many articles contain this to some degree. Let's take a look at these three for example: [37] , [38] , [39]. As you can see, each of these articles contains "a dark, experimental style of music, 140 bpm, and it began to grow in 2005 in US". Your evidence does not prove anything, it is the history and general facts about that particular style of music. Once again, in my formal analysis I described these sentences as "general phrases." How these general phrases relate to “subject’s music”, “Notability” and how this confirms that the article about subject should be deleted is not clear.

We must answer the question whether there are enough reliable sources covering the subject's music, and whether they fit the Wikipedia rules (independent, reliable, sigcov) or not. They fit and there are enough of them. We may not count the source somewhere if paraphrasing about dubstep confuses you, but these are general phrases about dubstep genre, they don’t relate to the subject anyway.

And I kindly invite you to take a look at the best WP:THREE music review sources I suggested above. If they are not strong enough in your opinion, then there is an additional one for each that makes it even stronger. Roxy177 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The integrity of the writing goes to the heart of whether a source should be considered for WP:N. You described Sha Be Allah's work as "a bad source" [40], after the revelations of plagiarism. Applying the same standard, we should question the validity of David Thompson's work as well. Also, I'm not done with the analysis of the Musictimes review. After plagiarizing the intro/background section, the author makes a contrived segue:

Into all of this environment, a Belarus musician has made his way, by adding his own essence and style. We are talking about PYTI, whose real name is Alexey Nikitin.

He then goes on to describe the music. To me, the prose used throughout the rest of the article seems a bit odd:

The deep lines of his tracks, the calculated rhythmic dispersion, and its atmosphere of restlessness as well as the halo of mystery that surround his creations, have made of him an illustrative musician of the tension of the young millennium stop.

What does that even mean? There's more to be said about the writing style in the other reviews as well. I can go through it in detail, but the general gist of it is that these do not seem like genuine reviews.-KH-1 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really plagiarize facts, they generally count as common knowledge. Typically you don't need to fear, writing a fact. You can plagiarize opinions. For example: someone lost a war on a certain island in the Pacific Ocean in the late 1990s. And another example: someone lost a war on a certain island in the Pacific Ocean in the late 1990s due to a lack of ammunition, equipment, poor logistics, no friends and etc. Dry historical facts vs opinion on why someone lost a war. Returning back to this source, that intro/background section where he talks about dubstep history, contains historical facts or an author’s opinion?

Let’s talk about writing style, I like, that you mentioned that. You said “I have serious doubts over the legitimacy of some of these reviews”, now I understand, what confuses you. This sentence looks really fancy:) Look, I try to explain using an example: Imagine a reliable source and an author who talks about how he loves LGBTQIA+, that there was a festival, let’s say, somewhere in Belarus, and there was a subject who was such a great leader, that he was even an illustrative figure of young millenniums, and how much beautiful people he saw, how he loved their fight for equality, and he used laudatory phrases and a doubtful transition from one section to another in his article. Are we going to count this article “does not seem like genuine review” because of author’s writing style or because we can’t accept the author’s mood? Or we still may write an article based on that example from NPOV? This is the point. Every author has their own taste in music and writing style to some degree, whether it’s in a positive mood or a negative one, we may use them all, and the result is a written article about subject based on those WP:RS and from WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia is encyclopedia, it provides summaries of knowledge. We have different reviews of varying degrees of criticism here, critical reviews too, and they comply with the Wikipedia's guidelines on music sources, which I analyzed above. Roxy177 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I present my analysis of WP:THREE good sources:

Let's look at another review by this author you are talking about: MusicTimes - Sunswept review

At the beginning of the article author talks about the track structure:

From the slow build-up at the intro, which transitions into a fast, upbeat tempo as the song progresses, the artist uses various techniques to evoke a sense of anticipation and closure throughout the song.

Analyzes the introduction:

During the track's intro, a deliberate pace builds slowly and smoothly into the song's primary groove. In the intro section, the artist also introduces melodic hooks using a cool bluesy melody and percussions to grab the listener's attention.

Then describes the alternation of tempo. Talking about transitions between sections of a song:

The transitions between various sections are well executed, allowing a smooth progression that keeps listeners engaged even when the tempo drops. The smooth transitions also add a sense of anticipation to the song and provide a satisfying release during the composition's outro.

Then author analyzes the harmonic progression, mixing, danceability of the track, etc. I see no point in quoting the entire review. Finally, he analyzes potential areas for improvement.

The review quality is clear.

Let's take an in-depth look at the review by Sha be Allah: The Source - Sunswept review

Intro:

The track opens with some retro inspired synths, programmed in a fast paced arpeggiated sequence. It comes off as almost ethereal, with some washy atmospheric sweeps in the background to create anticipation for the next section. While not particularly groundbreaking, it serves its purpose as a calm and peaceful starting point and does its job of setting the stage for an anticipated drop.

This is immediately followed by a detailed critique of the following section:

Just as the song insinuates, the initial drop comes right afterwards, albeit a bit too intensely. The most prominent element is the sidechained kick, which is a bit heavy in the mix. The imbalance of the kick drum vs the synthesizers takes away from the spotlight that the synth melodies should be receiving. However, on a second or third listen, the ears tend to enjoy the danceability of that intense beat. It’s a double-edged sword that can be both exhilarating and overwhelming for the listener.

Then analysis of the second verse:

Verse two arrives afterwards, and the fast paced sequenced arpeggiators are introduced again, bringing a nice allude to the introduction.

Critical analysis of the second drop:

The persistent dominance of the kick drum is still there, but the synths appear louder in volume and layered more, making it a more complete drop than the first.

Detailed analysis of the outro:

The outro brings back the consistent retro synth sound underneath a new counter melody. The new key sound, which alludes to a toy keyboard or a classic patch in Serum, helps ground the finale with some much peace.

And so on. The review quality is clear.

And, finally, let's take a look at the 3rd review: AllHipHop - Fortuna review

Intro:

“Fortuna” begins with a long intro featuring a gentle melody that gradually develops with layered synths, creating a sense of anticipation and tone for the rest of the song. The energy builds up as the intro progresses, then the artist introduces a solid bassline that is repeated almost throughout the entire song. This baseline serves as the foundation that other instruments are layered. And its beats and tempo are fast-paced.

Next author talks about synthesizers and vocal snippets:

The track also utilizes brief vocal snippets that add personality to it and make it more memorable. The vocals also help balance the song, especially when the artist continuously uses many synthesizers.

And so on. At the end there is a conversation about aspects that can be improved:

For example, the structure of the track does not quite fit the typical radio format, mainly due to its lengthy intro, therefore, which could limit its exposure. Also, using too many synths, distortions, and other random elements could clutter the melody and distract some listeners. The layering of too many elements at a time could also distract and overwhelm some listeners.

The review quality is clear.

You are moving the discussion into the idea that if an author once had a bad review, then all subsequent reviews will also be bad, but this is not true. And one does not follow from the other. Or in your opinion, the author cannot write both a bad and a good review? Or do you want us to start discussing whether this particular source is reliable or not? Or any other source. Is the author reliable, can we trust him or not?

My point is if the prose in the article or some sentence “seems a bit odd” for you, you may simply not take this source into account when evaluating N. Let’s evaluate the facts about subject's work. Do these reviews that I quoted comply with the Wikipedia's guidelines? Does the prose convince you? They are sufficient to establish subject's N. Roxy177 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the above is TLDR, but Roxy177's source eval shows significant discussion of the subject and their work. The article is sourced for a BLP, may be a bit promo, but that doesn't dismiss the sources Roxy177 mentions above. // Timothy :: talk 09:49, 21 November 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!} 23:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Honey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sourced mostly by the company blog (which was up yesterday, but is down today), and two government websites with reports of Asian hornet sightings in Eastbourne, but without mentioning the company. I can find nothing at all about them online, which is unsurprising as the article says the company was only formed in June. There are companies with this name in Canada and New Zealand, which appear to be unrelated. We currently have no verification that this company actually exists. Wikishovel (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lovely local business - but the most I can find is an Instagram account of a similar named company which is, indeed, in Canada. Delete. ResonantDis_tortion 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a recently-established small business. The firm have been alert in identifying invading hornets but this does not contribute to demonstrating notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 18 November 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!} 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ngonguinha[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP with no signs of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I have searched "Ngonguinha" and "Zeferina Elsa Caupe," as well as "Ngonguita," which it also appears she has been known by. JTtheOG (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Angola. JTtheOG (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 15 November 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.

[1] "American Physical Society, Edward A. Bouchet Award". Archived from the original on June 15, 2010.

[2] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Declaration

[1]

[1]