Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

Purge server cache

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


The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Horse Park Airdrie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Iron_Horse_Park_Airdrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and no sources are available other than the park's webpage and travel blogs advertising the park. Endersslay (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia is full of articles about locally notable attractions. Please see Category:Lists of museums in the United States by state or territory and others. And FYI, I've edited hundreds of such articles on Wikipedia. Regarding sourcing, that which you see as travel blogs, are often not blogs but how museums etc. are written about. I added a couple of sources and info, so hope that helps. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Airdrie, Alberta. This is a tricky one. I abandoned an AfC draft on a theme park a few months ago that was in a similar situation: that theme park was much larger (20+ attractions), but very few online sources were available. In that draft, as in this article, I see two issues: one is notability; the other is coverage. Putting notability aside, I'm not seeing the coverage question adequately satisfied here. Do the available reliable sources say that much, beyond run-of-the-mill coverage like opening hours, to justify a standalone article? To avoid an unsatisfying WP:PERMASTUB, I think the current contents of the article can be adequately summarised into three or four well-cited sentences on the settlement page (that is, Airdrie, Alberta). We can then hope that one day, there will be enough coverage for an editor to recreate the article. And then we can talk about whether local attractions are notable or not. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Iron Horse Park Airdrie has just enough notability to merit an article. TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems notable and interesting Mr Vili talk 23:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator, with no editors currently !voting delete. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CER6 (disambiguation)[edit]

CER6 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Pinging @NmWTfs85lXusaybq:, @Dcirovic:, @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn conforming now. - Altenmann >talk 23:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I have cleaned up this dab after the third entry's article created. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as even though the nomination has been withdrawn, there are some editor arguing to Delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Now that all the votes other than keep have been stricken, the discussion is eligible for a speedy close. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just for fun of it, there is a condensing enzyme CER6 to write about, not to say that "condensing enzyme" is a poor redirect. "CER6 is believed to be the major condensing enzyme for stem wax and pollen coat lipid biosynthesis. " -- it looks like an article is warranted :-). - Altenmann >talk 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. google shows many other wonderful things names cer6, such as CER6=Cambridge English Readers advancing level 6, MGS Model CER6 Cable Reel Trailer, N-hexanoylsphingosine (Cer6) ,... in other words, there is a work for a True Wikipedianisatorist! - Altenmann >talk 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe the trailer doesn't have an article yet! Getting on it now. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are late; it has now :-), even with a picture :-) - Altenmann >talk 00:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least three topics by that name listed, at least two of which have verbose enough descriptions to (in my opinion) fail WP:TWOOTHER even if the primary topic was clear. And the conversation above suggests there may be more added soon. Though a quick search does show that the primary topic might in fact be the restransmitter and not the location? But I'll leave that to others. Rusalkii (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the conversation above? I recommend rereading it, lol. As for the primary topic, I don't really care enough to invest in it right now, but perhaps. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to EBay. Just a reminder, it is up to the editor(s) doing the Merge to decide how much or how little content to merge to the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProStores[edit]

ProStores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn defunct e-business - Altenmann >talk 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the subject is not equal to eBay for merging. I think we cannot merge every tiny startup or subsidiary to the parent company. While it's possible, I find little logic in doing so. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what little content there is and redirect to eBay as per Bearian.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. F. Zaimis[edit]

G. F. Zaimis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unencyclopedic in tone and poorly sourced. Untenable in its current state, and nominating on the basis that even if substantive sources existed, it is too advertorial to remain. Google searches pull up little except self-published sites.

  • National Book Critics Circle (https://www.bookcritics.org/2013/11/25/g-f-zaimis-picks-six-poets/) does not confer notability or provide substance re her biography/life
  • Reviews on the back of her book, cited throughout the article (from self-hosted pdfs on Wix sites) are arguably the product of advance copies and are ultimately blurbs that do not confer notability on the subject as a writer of prominence
  • Events at the Freud Museum, Athens Centre may indicate prominence but are promotions for speaking events and still do not provide biographical substance

Even if notability were shown, the article is arrogantly editorial. No source here can assert that her "grammatology recalls Derrida's understanding of the word". The removal of this fluff with actual substantive sources (if there are any) would necessitate a complete rewrite. ‒overthrows 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It's so over the top it reads like a hoax at first, and seems like a good candidate for WP:TNT. The fact that it has been written almost entirely by many SPAs makes one wonder if it's UPE or an AUTOBIO. Will !vote later after examining the sourcing, however if it is kept it would make sense to trim it back to a stub until it could be crafted in a more encyclopedic manner. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The vast majority of the sourcing simply links to other wikipedia articles, or to websites that don't mention her at all, or are "sourced" to her own writings, website or youtube videos. A few others seem to be listings of events - primary sources - but not to biographical or critical analysis of her work. With so much refbombing, it's hard to tell what is there, so WP:TNT seems like the proper route. It may-or-may-not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR as it's hard to tell with so much cite kill. I'm also about 90% sure it's either WP:COI, WP:UPE or an WP:AUTOBIO based on the sheer number of SPA editors and non-neutral tone. I am finding zero hits on Google Scholar and Scopus, therefore fails WP:NPROF, and not finding anything to support that she's a notable photographer. Delete per WP:TNT. Netherzone (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Visual arts, Architecture, and Photography. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = They lost me at the opening sentence of "polymath, thought leader ... friend of philosophy" sourced to this person's own web site on wix.com. I also checked the last two sources, neither of which mention this person's name. Lacks independent sources and significant coverage. Elspea756 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could only find brief mentions here [1][2], neither of which support notability. Shapeyness (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the references for the article do not establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G7 performed. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XinFin[edit]

XinFin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Sourcing consists of press release reprints or sources with only trivial mentions of XinFin. ~ A412 talk! 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your point of view. S from the Rebel Moon (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per author note - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hayes (footballer)[edit]

Nick Hayes (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage is largely limited to press releases put out by teams; there is one example of brief coverage by the BBC (regarding Hayes signing to Ipswich), but it provides almost no independent coverage of the subject beyond that detail. Searching online, there may be an Australian-rules footballer by this name that is notable, but the English Hayes does not appear to meet notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep for me, I feel it's fine the article with the citations a little more other stuff online. Govvy (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, all available sources appear to be fleeting mentions and/or stats and transaction info. Player has not made any appearances above National League level. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fifth-tier footballer lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. All coverage is really fleeting mentions, nothing substantial. AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Battle of Dushanbe[edit]

Battle of Dushanbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator of the article was just blocked for socking [see [3]), this was already deleted before [4], the sockpuppeteer's previous creations of this article on some other wikis had some clear vandalism signs [5] [6], these are some previous discussions about the edits of this sockpuppeteer that show verifiability issues and misuse of sources: [7] [8] [9]. I asked @HistoryofIran who is familiar with sockpuppeteer on article talk page [10] and they said it's likely not notable. This sockpuppeteer has done some sneaky vandalism and demonstrated using fake references, misusing sources with their edits multiple times. So I feel this might have verifiability issues, even if it doesn't, it's probably not notable for a seperate article. Tehonk (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Construct-Bots[edit]

Construct-Bots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any reliable RS that have written on this topics. Print coverage appears limited to press releases and inventory lists; there's reviews on YouTube, but none of them appear to have been published by a reliable, professional publication. I tried to find an adequate Transformers-related page that this could be redirected to, but we don't seem to have any lists of Transformers toy lines, and this product line doesn't appear to line up with any specific Transformers sub-franchise. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIMG-LD[edit]

KIMG-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri Chupin (footballer, born 2002)[edit]

Valeri Chupin (footballer, born 2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, having searched online in Russian. Coverage is limited to extremely brief mentions in match writeups (e.g. [11]), and coverage put out by his former team, Valmiera FC. Initially I had attempted a BLAR to the article on his grandfather (Valeri Chupin (footballer, born 1961)), although on closer inspection, that article and the one on his father (Yevgeni Chupin) may also have notability issues. Reviewing User talk:Mish-FCTM, this appears to be the 9th time (more or less) since September 2022 that Mish-FCTM has objected to a BLAR or PROD without identifying appropriate sources, with what appears to be a 100% deletion rate when the discussion is ultimately brought to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination of Nagadhatta[edit]

Extermination of Nagadhatta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article centers around an event from ancient Indian history where it is claimed that a Gupta ruler killed another ruler. However, the sources provide scant information about this conflict, as evident upon reading the article. The background section has been fabricated with entirely different narratives. There are no further details provided about the ruler named "Nagadhatta," and it is worth considering the potential disorder in MILHIST-related articles if every minor conflict between two kings were to be given separate articles, especially when details are scarce. The article fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines and lacks substantial reliable sources.Imperial[AFCND] 16:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nominator's arguments. Tehonk (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fabrication easily seen as Nagadhatta is not an article, so writing about their death (which of course should be called Death of Nagadhatta instead rather than this overly provocative title) makes no sense when we know nothing of their life. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above and the event lacking general notability. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Minimal discussion in sources, lack of sourcing for the statements regardless. TLAtlak 04:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Nordwestliche Insel Mountains#Oskeladden Rock. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oskeladden Rock[edit]

Oskeladden Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very limited referencing for many years. No reason to think that a named rock in Antarctica is notable. JMWt (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Edward B. Kurpis[edit]

Edward B. Kurpis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. The rather WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim of having played a founding role at both CNBC and NBC is cited to page 24 of this book, which is the author bio at the end of an article written by Kurpis himself. I am unable to find any further coverage beyond the cited routine hiring announcement for BNN in Variety ([12]) which fails to even identify which BNN it refers to, let alone provide any further biographical detail of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dariusz Szulik[edit]

Dariusz Szulik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's brief mentions in roster, transfer, and match reports from teams that Szulik has played on, but I'm not able to find anything that goes into more depth than that. Does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown (quartet)[edit]

Midtown (quartet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, independent significant coverage is absent. All we have is Broadway World ([13]), which was assessed as an unreliable PR outlet in an RSN discussion (February 2023), and the conferral of an award as reported by the organization conferring it [14]. Searching online turned up more press releases for concerts, but nothing significant. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 5 is reliable, but that's about it. There's also a Midtown Jazz quartet, different from this group, that pops up when searching. I see nothing further about this group. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 5 also has almost nothing to say about Midtown, except But Quorum won all three rounds of competition and took first prize by a wide margin — a full 1.5 percentage points over second-place winner Midtown. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Shifters[edit]

Neo Shifters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears to be limited to reviews in non-professional blogs and forums [15] plus PR. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by TruTV. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Container Wars[edit]

Container Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)#Petit Eva: Evangelion@School. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petit Eva[edit]

Petit Eva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Other languages' citations don't offer any support of notabilty. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)#Petit Eva: Evangelion@School. There are two sizable articles about the production linked at Japanese wiki: [16], [17]. The site is Mycom.co.jp (Mainichi Communications), a game publisher according to IGN: [18]. They did have editorial content like this Final Fantasy 4 review: [19]. Only review (about the game) I found is this by ITMedia: [20]. If someone knows more about these sites and can say they are reliable sources, I could change my mind, though it's kinda borderline case even if they are. --Mika1h (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would be ok with a merge. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Arlington house explosion[edit]

2023 Arlington house explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely not notable under WP:NEWSEVENT. To quickly overview the criteria (as stated on the talk page of the article):

  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Though many outlets covered this story, much of the coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves and subsequent law enforcement updates on the status of the investigation, or to the social media posts of the homeowner claiming various conspiracies. Some other stories focus specifically on the neighbors, but that is largely the extent of any coverage.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Virtually all articles related to this story were published within three days of the event itself.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Although many national and international outlets covered the event, these largely followed the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred. Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in Arlington and haven't seen the explosion mentioned in the local media since a week after the event, so I'll be surprised if it's endured in coverage further afield. I'm unaware of any enduring newsworthiness of this event. Largoplazo (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator here adding to echo your sentiments; I am also very local to where this occurred. It was a big interest story for a couple of days but died down in discussion within a couple of weeks at most. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Conspiracy theorist's house exploded" is a bit of a stretch for notability. Replace it with "insurance agent's house exploded" and it's non-notable. I don't think just because the person was controversial makes this a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It there was perhaps more about the conspiracy theorist as a person, they might get an article. That's for another day I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With discussing it on the talk page, I agree this doesn't meet the threshold of significance beyond the news cycle. There's been no substantive coverage since, especially since the perp is deceased so you're not likely to even get legal proceeding coverage. There's not really any appropriate place for a merge or alternative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Singular casualty toll and absence of follow up information. Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it fits notability. It should have been on wikinews. --evrik (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himeko[edit]

Himeko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME and WP:GNG (no WP:SIGCOV, hardly any reliable sources outside of simple databases). All of the people listed are fictional characters, none of which seem notable enough for their own article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)[edit]

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a stable redirect for about 2-3 years and the person who restored the page cited WP:PTM. The titles don't seem to be two completely different things. I read the examples in that page, but I don't see how it should apply to this page. I will getting a consensus on what to do with this. Interstellarity (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per MOS:DABGROUPING - Handy DAB - I never before realized how many variations there are on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series). ✗plicit 12:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Are We Going to Do with Uncle Arthur?[edit]

What Are We Going to Do with Uncle Arthur? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. No reason to think that this topic has independent notability outside of Upstairs,_Downstairs_(1971_TV_series) JMWt (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to MagicJack (WPS). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 magicJack season[edit]

2011 magicJack season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

magicJack (WPS) had one season in its entire history (2011), its detail is hardly worthy of its own article and any information available should merged into the team's small primary article. Its predecessor, Washington Freedom, has no season articles and is far more notable than this relocated temporary successor club. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krystle Kaul[edit]

Krystle Kaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable congressional candidate. I fail to see how she passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL given that most of the articles cited on this page are minor blogs or routine coverage of her campaign announcement from local news outlets. The only national-level articles cited here are the ones from Voice of America and the Washington Post, both of which only have 1 sentence mentioning Kaul. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: Candidate is notable beyond the United States. She has gotten major notability from several outlets in India and Pakistan - both English speaking countries and bona fide users of Wikipedia in English, as she stands to be the first individual of Kashmiri origin to serve in the United States Congress. This fact alone merits preservation, as it contributes to the historical and cultural record, offering insight into the evolving landscape of American political representation. Furthermore, her traction is highlighted by the amount of financial support she has garnered in her electoral campaign, surpassing established politicians by a significant margin, is a testament to her widespread appeal and the public interest in her candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel G Rego (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few articles about her candidacy is not "major notability" in the US or otherwise. Per WP:NPOL, being an candidate for office doesn't establish notability, so the fundraising argument is irrelevant. The fact that she *would be* the first Kashmiri person in Congress is also irrelevant. Should we just give a Wikipedia article to every single Kashmiri person who runs for Congress? Also, it's pretty clear by the WP:PROMO language you're using that you have a vested interest in this issue and want to keep this page because you support Kaul's candidacy. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Sir/Madam: This is a respectul reminder to uphold the principles of WP:EQ and maintain a standard of civility in our discourse. Your counter-argumentation strays from these core values, veering into character assassination, baseless accusations, and attempts to denigrate fellow Wikipedians. Such tactics not only undermine the spirit of collaborative and respectful dialogue but also detract from the substantive discussion at hand: the merits and demerits of the article in question. Daniel G. Rego (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful to link these Indian and Pakistani articles you are referring to, if there is widespread and in-depth coverage of this individual. Otherwise, this comment is meaningless for the purposes of the AfD. - Skipple ☎ 05:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or partial merge) >>> 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 Djflem (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Josephine Collective. Star Mississippi 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Demos 2006[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Summer Demos 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM, lacks any sources or references. Has been tagged as such since September 2018 with no improvements or referencing.

The previous AfD argued that it was notable because it was released by a notable band. As per WP:NALBUM, the recording needs to be notable in its own right (WP:GNG). I've searched but cannot find any reliable independent secondary sources for this release. Dan arndt (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Josephine Collective: found absolutely nothing supporting notability. I'm not even convinced the band is notable; all their article has is an AllMusic bio which is just a paragraph long. But for now, this may as well be sent there despite receiving zero mention on that page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Josephine Collective. I was amazed to see that this article survived an AfD in 2010, when dinosaurs walked the earth, partially because of a "weak keep" vote from me. That vote was a reaction to the circumstances of the time: Wikipedia had recently decided that demo albums were not notable unless proven otherwise, and this caused a rash of AfDs in which nominators scoured the earth for album articles that simply had "Demo" in the titles but rarely bothered to discuss possible notability. My vote back then was procedural due to weak reasoning from the 2010 nominator. So anyway... this album article seems to have fallen through the cracks until now, and since 2010 the album notability rules have gotten tougher. This album clearly gained no notice from the reliable music media, so I hereby overrule my younger self. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is about all I find [21]. Nothing for sourcing for the album, I doubt the band is even notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Josephine Collective as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Josephine Collective: Not independently notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Josephine Collective: mention per Oaktree. Password (talk)(contribs) 02:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Incubus (band)#Band members. ✗plicit 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Koppel[edit]

Gavin Koppel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DJ does not seem independently notable from his original band Incubus. Marked for notability for 12 years, and none of the sources used in the article seem reliable or uniquely refer to Incubus. Broc (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Koppel is extremely significant in the development of the band Incubus. He is an original member of the band who is the predecessor of DJ Kilmore. This wikipedia page has served as an important talking point and information page regarding his legacy. He is still active as an artist and musician. He is still a royalty recipient of Sony for his works with Incubus. Deletion of this page will serve no purpose other than vandalizing this wikipedia page. It seems that this editor Broc is simply angry because he cannot control what is written regarding this artist, and possibly Broc is a current band member of Incubus who wants to delete the page for personal reasons. The idea of deleting this page has come suddenly after some unfounded lies about Gavin were recently deleted from this page. No other editor has ever attempted to delete the page and it seems to be requested out of spite. 24.205.63.99 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Koppel did not attract any media interest except with regard to the band Incubus. The legal stuff that was reported was still about the band, not describing Koppel's life or career. The media praised his DJ skills early on, but after he was fired they only describe his threats and being slapped with a restraining order.[22][23] Not once has the media decided he was worthy of a short biographical piece. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "media interest" is not the sole, nor a determining guideline to a biography of a living artist on Wikipedia. Through the trials and tribulations, including the media blitz on TMZ, and the numerous print magazines throughout the early 2000s (as DJ 1987), party flyers concert listings... filmmaking career, and current status on social media as Mr. 1987... Koppel is most definitely a "remarkable" artist and personality. The recent kickstarter campaign, rerelease of his vinyl record, mixtape, and merchandise definitely overqualified as "media interest" . The fact that he still sells his own music and art, as well as collecting significant royalty checks from Incubus, underlines the importance of this page. He is also a father and a successful business owner. He has recently created a successful new brand "Cruiseline" and his son is and AYSO champ, attending a gifted magnet school in Los Angeles Unified School District. LyonCruz (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would again like to point out the fact that you have made no attempt to delete this page until 3 days ago when defamatory remarks about Koppel were removed. You are clearly doing this out of a dislike for Koppel and making an attempt to "Cancel" Koppel and demean his legacy. LyonCruz (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris Kilmore and Alex Katunich also have pages connected to the Incubus page. They also have no notoriety outside of Incubus. Are you interested in deleting their pages? or are you obsessed with Koppel for personal reasons? LyonCruz (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing the victim doesn't work with me. Alex's biography has several sources discussing his life and career. Chris Kilmore does not have that stuff, so his biography would likely be deleted just like this one. Feel free to nominate it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is playing anything. I'm addressing the fact that you seem to have a personal dislike of Koppel. You've made no attempt to delete other similar pages of Incubus members past or present. Kilmore, Koppel, and Katunich are all relevant and worthy of the Wikipedia articles which were created for them, but those articles all contain outdated sources which can be nitpicked for notoriety and value. We are addressing the issue and you seem to be jumping on a bandwagon of anti Koppel sentiments. You twice reverted improperly cited sources of defamatory and assumptive remarks regarding Koppel on the incubus band page. You knew that the cited source was a tabloid containing information inconsistent with the opinionated statements made. That is a clear violation of the guidelines and it's the exact same thing Broc has done. Seems as though that's why you are now "jumping on the bandwagon" to delete a page for personal reasons. Broc nominated the page stating "DJ does not seem independently notable from his original band Incubus. ... none of the sources used in the article seem reliable or uniquely refer to Incubus". Once those issues were addressed and corrected, you and Broc are still persisting. Now you're adding your opinion that the media isn't interested in Koppel, even though cited sources show his recent music releases are independently selling to the Incubus fanbase. It seems as though your and Broc's concerns regarding the quality of the page are disingenuous. LyonCruz (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be nominating anything for deletion. It's counter productive and serves as vandalism. I'm here to add and build articles, not "cancel" and delete them. I periodically visit those pages myself, as those people are some of my favorite musicians. LyonCruz (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this independently sourced news article regarding Koppel's recent release with many other well known recording artists in the Nu Metal genre. It's all been updated on Koppel's page. Thank you and I hope this helps
https://nzmusic.org.nz/news/artist/ill-nino-one-minute-silence-and-incubus-members-co/ LyonCruz (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the recent news article dated January 11, 2024. This regards Koppel as DJ Lyfe. This independently sourced news page reads: "DJ Lyfe was one of, if not the first DJ to join a rock band as a full-time contributing member in 1995. He was fundamental in shaping the cross-pollination of hip-hop with metal. DJ Lyfe scratches unused samples on Over This that he created for Incubus’ sophomore and critically acclaimed album S.C.I.E.N.C.E." LyonCruz (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Incubus (band)#Band members as a plausible search term. I was unable to find any reliable independent coverage that directly discusses Koppel in-depth as an individual musician. Left guide (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Incubus (band)#Band members. Per Left guide's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as described above. The sources available, including NZ and PRP, are insufficient in their depth to form the basis of a biography. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. There is news like this about his alleged death threat to his replacement but that can be covered in the band article. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Akkineni (filmmaker)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Akshay Akkineni (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:FILMMAKER. Since the last AFD (and subsequent salting of Akshay Akkineni), he was assistant director on another film. Article also says that he has notable relatives, but notability is not inherited on Wikipedia. In a WP:BEFORE search, the best I can find in RS is gossipy reports about his wedding. Wikishovel (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to City of Bell scandal. ✗plicit 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Mirabal[edit]

George Mirabal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. Does not appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. He does have some media coverage related to his role in the City of Bell scandal, though his individual role does not seem to pass WP:NCRIME. Could be merged or redirected to City of Bell scandal as an WP:ATD. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to City of Bell scandal. ✗plicit 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Jacobo[edit]

Teresa Jacobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. Does not appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. She does have some media coverage related to her role in the City of Bell scandal, though her individual role does not seem to pass WP:NCRIME. Could be merged or redirected to City of Bell scandal as an WP:ATD. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krehbiel family[edit]

Krehbiel family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable secondary sourcing about the family. It's possible the patriarch, Fred, is notable, as he had a Chicago Tribune obit, but the entire family? No chance. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Prateek[edit]

Gaurav Prateek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have yet to find a reliable source here. All that I have checked are from unreliable sources such as IMDB and equivalents or based on one press release (identifiable by the use of the same images) or interviews. This appears to be a one film actor anxious to publicise himself. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:30, 1 February 2024 (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) 02:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 04:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirzad Abdullayev[edit]

Shirzad Abdullayev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you look at the career sections, you can see that there are no important places in Azerbaijan, and the references do not belong to the sentences mentioned, they consist only of speeches and articles. Redivy (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2024 (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) 02:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ng Dios kay Cristo Jesús, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan[edit]

Iglesia ng Dios kay Cristo Jesús, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a WP:BEFORE I can't find any reliable sources that have WP:SIGCOV. There's no citations in the article as well. ‍ Relativity 04:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Airlines destinations[edit]

List of United Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following lists with the same problems:

List of American Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Lufthansa destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per the 2018 RFC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists at AFD in an orderly manner and include a link to the RFC in their nominations; it was also recommended that the closer of the AFD take the RFC closure into account. The consensus has been reaffirmed in several AFDs since then.

These lists violate WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not meant to host a database of every single city that an airline flies to as of February 2024 or whatever month it is. Nor is it supposed to provide an indiscriminate collection of every destination in history. Even if the airline flew to some city for a few years in the 1960s, it gets added to the list. All these former destinations border on airline trivia.

If we look at how the lists are referenced, we realize that they are basically repositories for airline data. In the United list, someone accessed the airline's route map in August 2020 and cited it for over 200 destinations. United also publishes a cleaner version of its route map in its inflight magazine (see pages 91–95 of this month's issue), which could be cited instead. The Lufthansa and American Airlines lists lack references for many current destinations, but this problem can be fixed rather easily. Neither airline publishes neat route maps like United; instead they have timetables that you have to search. In this case, an easy way to verify all current destinations is to consult a third-party aggregator of scheduling data, like Flightradar24 or FlightMapper.net. Then one of these websites or the airline's timetable can be cited for each current destination. You can add more references, like news stories about a new destination, but they would be redundant. Also, you cannot use such a reference on its own to say that the airline still flies to a given city as of this month. For example the Lufthansa list includes this source from 2017 about the launch of flights to Shannon, yet the city is labeled 'terminated' – which implies that someone had to check Lufthansa's current schedule to see if it still flies there. Ultimately we have established that the information in these lists is indeed verifiable. But the problem here is not one of verifiability. It is one of suitability – the suitability for Wikipedia of lists that essentially reorganize data sourced from flight databases.

In addition, keeping the lists up to date means functioning like a news service that documents every change to the airline's destinations. For instance the United list informs the reader that service to Winnipeg will resume in May, and the American list notes the upcoming addition of various destinations such as Naples and Copenhagen. The tracking of these periodic changes in airline schedules goes against WP:NOTNEWS.

For what it's worth, I'm an aviation enthusiast who has contributed to these lists in the past. I enjoy looking at old route maps, and I cited the one in my copy of Lufthansa's July 2011 inflight magazine for some of the past destinations. Nevertheless, WP:NOT makes it clear that these lists are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In recent AFDs on lists of airline destinations, many more than three lists were bundled into the nominations. I am taking a conservative approach here because these are the lists of three major Western airlines, which may attract more attention on the English Wikipedia than other airlines. I want to give people the opportunity to concentrate on and discuss a small number of such lists before more are nominated for deletion. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NOTDB, NOTINDISCRIMINATE. These are simply mirrors of primary corporate sources and are out of date almost immediately. Any page that requires vigilant regular checks to make sure its content is accurate and serves any purpose at all does not belong on WP.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, in accordance with the RFC cited above. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOTDB. Additionally nom's reasoning should be summarized and added to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as it is a good explanation of why pages are not databases. Jfricker (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RFC. Impossible to keep these lists up to date ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that the mere concept of keeping something up to date makes us a "news service" in violation of NOTNEWS. It is perfectly acceptable and routine to track current changes, and that's part of the beauty of a wiki that we can keep something current. That's simply untrue that doing so here is "impossible", nor do we just delete things whenever – gasp! – something isn't perfectly accurate or current (WP:As of). However with respect to single corporations, I agree these do not need to be stand-alone articles, particularly because United has such a map on their homepage. Reywas92Talk 15:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between updating an airline's article to state that it has begun its first international flight, decided to close a hub, or filed for bankruptcy protection – and updating it to say that the airline will start flying to Redmond, Oregon, on 6 May 2024 and to Brisbane on 26 October 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an editorial decision. Can just as easily say no future destinations, or mark it as "planned" without a specific date. I agree that I wouldn't put that that kind of detail in a prose article, but that's not a reason for wholesale deletion. Reywas92Talk 04:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus for keep per the references provided, establishing GNG and SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ameera Shah[edit]

Ameera Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, notability is sought from family business "took over her father's pathology business" User4edits (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep : The article may need a rewrite /cleanup, but the subject looks notable as she is featured by some of the prominent publications in India.

I googled a bit and saw these good references in the media.

She is listed also as India's Most Powerful Women in Business by Fortune, Business Today and Forbes India.

-- Tinu Cherian - 13:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinucherian Most articles cited in bullet does not speak much about her or her contributions, some articles are years apart but written by the same individual journalist. Further, all articles have her name in the headline but there is no substance in the article about her. See also: Paid news in India (I am unable to find the WP internal article on this, but there is one).
About "listed also as India's Most Powerful Women in Business by Fortune, Business Today and Forbes India."
She is not listed as "the: most powerful, but a list of 100, or so, released each year. Thanks,
User4edits (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you assume every news story in India is paid for? I find such accusations of Indian media outrageous. Business Today, The Economic Times are very respected and top publications in India. This business today article is written by Neetu Chandra Sharma, who has over 18 years of extensive newspaper and digital reporting experience and Senior Editor at BT. The ET article is written by Viswanath Pillai, Asst Editor and has nearly 20 years of experience as a journalist. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinucherian, I did not mean to say that, I am myself from India. My main point was not the Curriculum vitae of journalists, but that there is little about her in those articles apart from her name in Headline, and that she is not listed as "the: most powerful, but a list of 100, or so, released each year. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she absolutely has not done anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This basically fails WP:SIGCOV, but even more broadly, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. She appears to be a very nice young lady who was put into her job by her father. That isn't notable. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an entry that should not be deleted. There are many sources, besides the fact that we need more Wikipedia pages about women who are doing important work. A very nice young lady? Come on What century are you living in...--Hazooyi (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits I have found more references about her in Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, two of the biggest and most reputed newspapers in the world.

It may be behind paywall and due to copyright issues, I am sharing only a few extracts

Financial Times : 'Transforming a small pathology lab into a $1bn business'

Ameera Shah, managing director of India’s Metropolis Healthcare, returned to her Mumbai home in mid-March, after giving birth to her first child. Her plan was to spend a month “without worrying about Metropolis,” the nationwide chain of diagnostics laboratories she had built over the previous two decades.
:But coronavirus cases had begun emerging in India, where authorities had done little to prepare for the pandemic. Ms Shah was soon ensnared in calls with government officials about testing policies.
On March 23, New Delhi permitted six private pathology labs — including Metropolis — to start testing for the pathogen. A day later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi abruptly imposed a nationwide coronavirus lockdown. The 40-year-old entrepreneur — who by then had retreated with her husband, parents and baby to a house in the countryside — found herself at the centre of a maelstrom, trying to help her company ramp up its coronavirus testing capacity amid the severe disruption of the lockdown.
For years, she fought the stereotype [in India] that young women lacked seriousness, as she transformed her father’s small pathology lab into a listed company valued at nearly $1bn on the Bombay Stock Exchange.

The Wall Street Journal : 'Entrepreneur Builds a Leading Chain of Diagnostics Labs'

Ameera Shah launched Metropolis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in 2001, expanding her father’s Mumbai-based pathology center into a company of 3,800 employees and a network of laboratories throughout India. Taking advantage of low regulatory costs that allow blood tests to be conducted at a tenth the price of a U.S. lab, the company has strived to build up scale, offering 4,500 types of tests on everything from cholesterol to complex genetics. But loose regulation also means stiff competition – there are about 100, 000 pathology labs in India’s fragmented market. Ms. Shah, 36, spoke with The Wall Street Journal about her decision to return to India after going to college in the U.S., the challenges of organizing independent-minded Indian doctors and her decision to expand into emerging markets in Africa.

Hope these references are more than enough to prove the notability of the subject -- Tinu Cherian - 18:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Numerous media outlets have extensively covered the subject, easily meeting the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's notability guideline (WP:GNG). I found several recent articles by just searching her name on Google News. Here are a few coverages that are currently missing and should be added to improve the article instead of deleting it.

MPW 2023: How Metropolis Healthcare MD Ameera Shah steered her firm past the post-Covid dip

MPW 2023: Women have made great strides in the healthcare sector, but it’s still a work in progress

The She List | Women who are the powers that be in the world of Indian business

Competition intensity in diagnostics moderating

Metropolis on the prowl for acquisitions as sector's competitive intensity eases

NATHEALTH elects Dr Ashutosh Raghuvanshi, MD and CEO, Fortis Healthcare, as the ..

Metropolis Healthcare Is In A Sweet Spot, Says MD Ameera Shah

Meet Ameera Shah: Innovating Diagnostics Industry; From One Lab To 1,500 Centres Today

How Ameera Shah powered the rise of Metropolis Healthcare

Ameera Shah On A Tear To Expand Multinational Diagnostics Lab Chain 

Himalayan7914 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Victory (church)#Victory Worship. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Worship[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Victory Worship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, all cites are just from the group or its church. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between delete and redirect. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChilOut[edit]

ChilOut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find significant coverage in the limited google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. Source 1 doesn't link to actual report, source 2 appears dead Source 3 doesn't mention this organisation and source 4 is a self published source. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 01:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hümaşah Sultan (daughter of Murad III)[edit]

Hümaşah Sultan (daughter of Murad III) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly created and deleted in the past, with deletion comments like "Note sockmaster's history of incorrect referencing / maybe outright hoaxing." I notice that e.g. the claim about 1648 is sourced to this, but the pdf[24] doesn't mention Humasah or Nakkas. Another book from the bibliography[25] doesn't seem to mention this daughter either. This book mentions a "Hümaşah Sultane", but not as daughter of Murad III. Humasah doesn't seem to appear in this source used as source 3 in the article. Basically, this needs to be checked by others as well to see if we again have a partial or complete hoax, and if so the creator checked against the previous sock creators of this same page. Fram (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything written in the article is true and nothing has been distorted or added. The fact is that Nakkash Hasan Pasha was married to the daughter of Murat III in early 1605, but historians have not been able to discover the name. In the book where 1648 is mentioned, it is seen that Hasan Pasha was married to Humaşah Sultan, which means that she is the daughter of Murat III who was married to him. Humaikiski (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionaly, in the document you are reffering, it is written moglie die Nachasc Hasanpascia Humasce sultan vedova, which means that Humashah Sultan was widow of Nakkash Hasan Pasha. As she recieved gifts in 1648, she was still alive in 1648. Humaikiski (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Humaikiski: Some of the cites have harv errors - I suggest user:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Humaikiski: As many people reading the Turkish article will be Turkish I wonder why nothing from https://katalog.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/ is cited there.
@Humaikiski: I logged in and tried to search the above archive for هماشاہ سلطان but I could not find anything - that may be because I am not familiar with the site - can you advise? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah it seems we have to search using Turkish letters. So I see there are a lot of documents mentioning Hümaşah Sultan but I am not a historian and cannot read Ottoman. So I don’t know what they say about her husband or father Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The summary of document 82 you mention says: Padişahın halası Hümaşah Sultan'ın Kethüdası Ahmed Çavuş'un, Niğde sancağındaki zeametini zaptetmek için gönderdiği iki adamına Ali Çavuş adlı şahıs tarafından müdahalede bulunulduğu ve adamların ortadan kaybolup akıbetlerinin meçhul olduğu, yeniden gönderilen adamlara da aynı şekilde mâni olunduğu ve zeamet mahsulünün Ali Çavuş tarafından alındığı bildirildiğinden, Ali Çavuş'un teftiş edilip kabzettiği mahsulün alınması ve kaybolan adamlara ne olduğunun ortaya çıkartılması. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native speaker of Turkish but if I understand right first 4 words mean that Hümaşah Sultan was the paternal aunt of the then sultan Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Paternal aunt of Sultan Ahmed. Humaikiski (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to keep in mind that we have different persons with the same name and in the same extended family in this period, see Hümaşah Sultan (there may be more than the ones listed here). Fram (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically says that it was Sultan's aunt i.e. Ahmed I's aunt Humashah, so his father's sister. It cannot be anyone else with this name, situation is clear.
There was no two daughters of Murad III who were named Humashah. Humaikiski (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Humaikiski: When I click ref 8 a lot of it is showing in Serbian - can you change the link so those Serbian words are English? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
„82 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin' mentions Humashah Sultan as aunt of Sultan Ahmed, who gave him one of her kethudas. Humaikiski (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not check that because I do not like to click any buttons labelled in Serbian because I don’t know the language - please could you change the link to show English instead of Serbian Chidgk1 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not undestand exactly what do you want and for which part precisely. Humaikiski (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have edited cite 8 and hope it now shows English. Are you able to add the quote as described at the end of Wikipedia:GBOOKS? If not maybe you could use the quote and trans-quote parameters on cite 8 Chidgk1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram Are you able to link the previous deletion discussions so we can read them? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary source above shows she existed, and I hope the article will be improved Chidgk1 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your work on this. However, all we seem to have are some unrelated snippets for some unrelated facts where through WP:SYNTH a narrative is created (an aunt is mentioned here, a widow is mentioned there, and that's about it). At the moment, we have a combination of original research and a lack of notability, even if the concerns of an outright hoax seem to be laid to rest. Fram (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not thinking of spending any more time on this - I hope other people will weigh in now Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family. This person has no real notability and fails the criteria of WP:GNG. Being related to someone notable does not distinguish your own page. "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." Noorullah (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Several sources prove she existed, so it is essential for article to exist. The same will be improved and refined. Humaikiski (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Her existing does not deserve a page on its own. See the related areas I linked in my delete post, the individual being a relative of a famous person does not distinguish them as notable. @Humaikiski Noorullah (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hümaşah Sultan was very important person in that time; she was daughter of Safiye Sultan, thus own sister of Mehmed III and own sunt of Ahmed I. Sources indicate that she was still alive years later, and the interest of people is great to see true informations acquired from sources (influenced by the series). Humaikiski (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Humaikiski blocked as a sock of Dp210 (talk · contribs). I didn't delete this article while nuking others because there's a keep here, but it's already been deleted twice per WP:G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not seen the previous discussions - is it possible to see them? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [26] The creations by this editor (different accounts) have been deleted many times because of "sockmaster's history of incorrect referencing / maybe outright hoaxing" as it was stated in an earlier deletion note. Fram (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: WP:G5 would save us from wasting time by needlessly trying to verify and determine the notability. Regardless, the creator (sock) doesn't appear to understand that inherited notability is not allowed and repeats how she is a relative of famous Ottoman figures. If the topic was really notable, assuming there are sources we currently don't know about, some legit experienced editor can recreate the article if they wish in the future. I ask Chidgk1 to reconsider their vote, because primary sources are irrelevant. Aintabli (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have a strong opinion about notability or about this article. But if the result is delete it would be good if this discussion remains visible so that if a legit experienced editor wants to recreate the article in future at least from the primary source I found they might be able to find more sources. I got fed up with Turkish Wikipedia because so many of my changes are reverted. I have now added the primary source to the Turkish article but it may get reverted. If it is not a good idea to leave this discussion visible if you are able to re-add the primary source to the Turkish article I think that would be useful. When I first saw this discussion I had a look at the Turkish article but it was not at all useful in determining whether this article was a hoax or not. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we keep it as a one sentence stub just to show she existed? Then people who watch the TV series would be able to look back at the article history and if interested buy the books mentioned to try and find out whether the statements are true and possibly re-expand the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested quotations on the Turkish article. If nobody supplies quotes is there any chance you could stubify that article to one sentence? If I do so I am sure someone will put the dubious content back in Chidgk1 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I cannot find her in the thesis mentioned in the bibliography namely https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=osu1278971259&disposition=inline
    So as Fram says all the cites in the article may be useless unless anyone wants to check them Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chidgk1 I disagree with a one sentence stub still being in place. Per my deletion post, this person has no real notability other then being related to a King, which does not affirm notability itself per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family. Noorullah (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Might be eligible for SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Registry Emergency Medical Technician[edit]

National Registry Emergency Medical Technician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not important or significantly notable; should be moved to NREMT page where it is elaborated on Personhumanperson (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2024 (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) 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article just describes EMTs in the United States. Most, if not all, of the details in this article are either told in the page for EMTs, or the page for the organization which administers the certification.
Not only that, but the page lacks notability. Most of the sources cited, besides a couple which aren't related to the general topic, are primary sources from organizations that administer the certification, or the NREMT itself. Personhumanperson (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of defunct newspapers of Norway. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeidernes blad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arbeidernes blad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the second nomination, as the first closed with no consensus. The original deletion rationale was: "Painfully obscure, this newspaper only existed for four months in 1898. None of the sources deal with the newspaper in a substantial way."

There were two keep votes, which were exactly that, votes. One stated that "The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication", which does not touch upon policy at all. The other stated that "The article is informative ,it can be made a stub article instead of deleting it". Aside from it already being a stub, being informative is not a policy either.

One user asked for "translation of the key sources", but I'm opining that there are no key sources sufficient for Wikipedia guidelines. Sure, the facts are verifiable from catalogue sources such as this and this. But catalogue info is not enough since Wikipedia is not a directory. This history of labour movement newspapers from 1935 spends a whole four sentences on Arbeidernes blad, and this 1923 history of the city spends less: three sentences. Worst of all are the current sources in the article, which fall very short of demands and are passing mentions.

It could be merged to its successor, had it not been equally short-lived. There is no shortage of newspapers in Norway that lasted for a year or less. Not all of them, or rather very few of them, are notable. The first lasting workers' newspaper in Ålesund was in fact Nybrott (Ålesund newspaper), where Arbeidernes blad could warrant a mention in a section about forerunners.

To sum up the above, Arbeidernes blad fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG and there is a lack of WP:ATD. Geschichte (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication. Users seeking information about Arbeidernes blad can currently find such information at this article rather than finding nothing. Doremo (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm stunned that the nomination is actually longer than the article. Is there anything it could be possibly merged with? E. g. as a summary in an article on the history of press in Norway or the history of the city? If not then I guess it can be kept if it is important to the history of the city or local press (as the nominator points out there were many short-lived publications in Norway)? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is only common-sense based. Wikipedia is probably the only place online where this information about this publication can be found in one place in English, and just deleting it doesn't help or serve anyone's interests. It simply makes access to information disappear. Doremo (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that suggestion; my only objection is to simple deletion. Destroying information (or access to it) helps nobody. Doremo (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are knowledgeable on the subject then start this article and start putting material there. Start writing. Be WP:BOLD! --Ouro (blah blah) 13:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment (and the suggestion), but I have no expertise on the topic. I simply translated the English WP article from the Norwegian WP article Arbeidernes blad (and added some sources). Doremo (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some would say that's a good start. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Four lines about a 100 yr old newspaper doesn't say notability. I can't find mention if it, could be a brief mention in the "History of newspapers in Alesund" if someone wanted to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing on the page to show notability, nothing in the previous AfD and nothing offered here. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is possible that this is a datapoint in a historical page of media in Norway, that doesn't somehow justify a page in and of itself. JMWt (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, History, and Norway. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how's List of defunct newspapers of Norway as a possible merge target? Right now it's just a bare list, but it could just as easily be a proper list article with brief descriptions. -- asilvering (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good merge target. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a merger with a redirect. Doremo (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of defunct newspapers of Norway. The newspaper itself is definitely not notable, and shouldn't be kept as per Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. However a merge is a perfectly acceptable WP:ATD. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_15&oldid=1209775688"