Cannabis

thcscience_admin
< July 16 July 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Jerabek

[edit]
Angela Jerabek (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)

Poorly written promotional article about an academic not shown to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. The page's sole purpose appears to be to promote an educational model with little peer-reviewed research to back up its efficacy.Blanes tree (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Angela Jerabek just won the James Bryant Conant award, given to one American educator annually in recognition of their contributions to American education. Previous awardees include Thurgood Marshall, Fred Rogers, Claiborne Pell, and Miriam Wright Edelman.
    The American Institutes for Research reviewed the BARR model for three years, across three separate studies funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and found it to improve educational outcomes across numerous measurements. AIR's scale-up study, for example, was an independent review of 21,500 students in 69 schools. Most educational models cannot withstand this level of scrutiny. Among their findings:
    "The BARR approach had substantial and statistically significant impacts on the proportion of students who passed all their core courses."
    "BARR significantly reduced chronic absenteeism."
    "The BARR approach improved teachers’ collaboration with their peers, their data use, and a range of other teacher outcomes."
    Here is the report. Here is the actual PDF report.
    This model was also the only educational model to move through all three stages of federal government review in the I3 program. This article from the widely respected industry publication The Hechinger Report (a publication of the non-profit Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media) outlines the general failure of the 170 educational grantees to meet the program criteria. The one exception: BARR. It names the BARR model as the "poster child" for what the grant was intended to fund.
    The above reading of this article is factually uninformed about how educational models are reviewed and how important the BARR model is nationally at this time. Gtatum (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP Gtatum (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I am uncertain about the Conant award. But the NPR piece included in a bunch of refbombing at the bottom [1] appears to be a start towards WP:SIGCOV for a GNG case. I also see a MinnPost article [2] that looks like reasonable coverage. I agree that the article is in somewhat poor shape, although I don't think it's so bad as for WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an editor wants to work on a version of this article in Draft space, contact me or go to WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bro

[edit]
Dr. Bro (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 had double thoughts before finally agreeing that the notability of this article is very questionable. Firstly having many subscribers or views on YouTube doesnt credibly means the article is notable. There is nothing whatsoever credible about this article. There are some promotional contents in the article. For me, it doesnt meet WP:GNG, and such, I may decline in an AFC review. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heung Kong Group

[edit]
Heung Kong Group (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)

Unremarkable company UKWikiGuy (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Nation (Malawi). Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Publications Limited of Malawi

[edit]
Nations Publications Limited of Malawi (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Sng. Tagged by others for this since April. Misses ncorp by far. Zero references other than their own website and I couldn't find any GNG references. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as this is not the same article as the one that was nominated after improvements have been made. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Lovell

[edit]
Jacqueline Lovell (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 significant coverage found. She had three supporting roles in Full Moon Features films that have articles, but that does not seem to be enough - especially with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exact guideline says "Such a person may be considered notable if:", not that they are automatically notable. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And she is not automatically notable from three roles in three films when none of the roles received significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do you allow me to think she is and to !vote according to the applicable guideline? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but do you allow me to voice my thoughts because AfD is not merely just a vote? SL93 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your thoughts were pretty clear in your rationale, but feel free, of course. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While she does meet WP:NACTOR, I cannot find a single source mentioning her other than movie databases, so she does not pass WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are either not independent (words from co-star, an interview) and trivial coverage. One of the sources says, "This film (along with the aforementioned Hideous!) stars the beautiful Jacqueline Lovell, whose career came to screeching halt shortly after this film." Not only is a sentence not significant coverage but I would say that her career coming to a screeching halt shortly after a B-film speaks towards non-notability. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In less than 2 minutes, you've read all the sources added? Wow, I confess I am impressed. Anyway, begging to differ; even if her career as a b-movie star stopped it's sufficiently notable; and anyway again, I've added even more, and more exists, not that it is necessary imv. I disagree with almost everything you said but will leave it at that, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I need to read the full sources when I just need to use CTRl+F to search for "Jacqueline Lovell"? Why would I need to read full sources to know that something is an interview? Same with knowing that something is just a film database like IMDb and TV.com? SL93 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added (by the time of your first reply to me, I will check the new sources now) do not constitute significant coverage. Here is an analysis of them:
  1. [11] Only two passing mentions
  2. [12] This is unreliable per WP:IMDB
  3. [13] This is an interview, so it is not independent
  4. [14] This is a movie summary, and only makes three passing mentions of her
  5. [15] Only one passing mention
  6. [16] Only one passing mention
  7. [17] Only one passing mention
  8. [18] This is a movie, which is not independent of the subject
  9. [19] Only two passing mentions
  10. [20] Again, this is a list of movies, so not significant coverage
  11. [21] This is another movie, which is not independent of the subject
Gödel2200 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an analysis of the five new sources added, which still do not constitute significant coverage.
  1. [22] Only two passing mentions
  2. [23] This is an encyclopedia of movies, with only two passing mentions
  3. [24] This source does devote a few sentences to talking about her, but this is only a review of her performance
  4. [25] Only two passing mentions
  5. [26] Only two passing mentions
Gödel2200 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel D'Lima

[edit]
Manuel D'Lima (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the sources are about him. Sources (and much of the content) are about taitrs. Material on him is just resume type material. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to answer with respect to what you are seeing because there have been 104 edits to the article since I nominated this. But I did evaluate them at the time. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot was added after you nominated this, including several refs, but much of it was WP:PROMO, fluff, repetition, and stuff about the genre of theatre that, I think, has no direct relevance to D'Lima's career. I tried to reduce the promo, cruft, repetition and tangential stuff, but someone else should review the refs to see if they actually discuss Liima's life or career at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new additions to the article since it's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no review of additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article and no support for Deletion other than the nominator. The article needs work but that can be addressed through editing.

There is also a strong disagreement from participants here that WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to countries other than India. Please do not use it as a justification for deletion in future nominations. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PTV Sports

[edit]
PTV Sports (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)

References do not show how this is notable. Plenty of unreliable sources and NEWSORGINDIA but nothing in-depth. Recommend a redirect to parent Pakistan Television Corporation. While I did not do so prior to the AfD, programming also needs to be removed per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It appears that the notability of the page is attempted to be heightened by the mentions of the programs it shows. CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for references, make sure to weed out those that apply to PTV Sports (TV program) as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PTV Sports (TV program) is a Filipino TV program, so obviously editors searching in Pakistani sources won't encounter such references. 2A00:F29:248:C1E5:69B9:937C:A897:D420 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more RS.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These "reliable sources" seem to fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Can you point out the specific ones that show notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many news articles show controversy or negitivity about channel. So, WP:NEWSORGINDIA may not apply here. This may apply when all are praising. Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how that works. NEWSORGINDIA has to do with the context of the article (who wrote it, is it churnalism, etc.), not whether it is positive or negative. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NEWSORGINDIA cannot possibly apply to this article (and I'm surprised the nom hasn't received blowback for even mentioning that country's name in this nom for a Pakistani subject and network); it has enough sources within to easily pass WP:N and is by default Pakistan's main sports channel. Cull back the programming list to only cricket and soccer as a simple list and source it; that's the only true issue with this article. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is a little uncivil but I understand your concern as it has been raised several times in the past. NEWSORGINDIA has been applied to the entire subcontinent in both articles and AfD discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nate. The RfC consensus ([28]) was just about Indian mainstream media, and there was no discussion that we can apply this to whole Indian subcontinent countries (i.e., Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). As far as I can see, only CNMall41 is trying to extend that consensus to whole South Asia as if they are part of India or these countries are in some sort of union like EU, which is not the case. I'd recommend seeking a similar consensus about Pakistani sources with evidence on WP:RSN first and then adding similar wording as a note for our reference. This is how this should work. 94.201.21.216 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you seem not to be familiar with the discussions. In fact, it was suggested to change the name as having "India" in the NEWSORGINDIA heading makes it seem like it is singling out a specific country and/or nationality which I don't think is proper. You are more than welcome to start a discussion but as stated, this has been applied in many AfD discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be done if only to resolve the dispute. I read the sections in question and found no mention of countries other than India. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nate and WP:HEY. It is literally a state-owned monopoly and the only broadcaster of international events in Pakistan (Dawn covered it in detail). It has been operational since the 1970s as a sports division of PTV, similar to BBC Sports, which is a division of BBC. There is a large amount of offline and online coverage about the topic and some of them have been added already to the article. Meets WP:GNG. 2A00:F29:249:8243:E4E0:CA6C:D0E7:378B (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing coincidence. Back to back IP addresses commenting. But, here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Dawn, can you link to more in-depth coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your effort. What are the references that support notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The proposed redirect has been rejected as inappropriate, but may be pursued separately at RfD. Owen× ☎ 12:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical mathematics

[edit]
Classical mathematics (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 not a thing. It claims to be about "classical mathematics", in distinction to constructivist approaches, but this distinction is actually entirely about classical logic, a topic for which we already have an article and do not need a second one. My WP:BLAR (a redirect to classical logic) was reverted by an anonymous user, un-reverted by CFA, reverted again by the anon, and supported by Викидим, so rather than continuing to edit-war over the redirect we should discuss it. Here is the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The term is much broader than just foundations of mathematics
  2. There are plenty of sources discussing the classical mathematics in a broad and narrow sense
  3. It has little to do is not directly with equivalent to the Classical logic
A merge into the Foundations of mathematics can be considered. --Викидим (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are some of these sources? Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many works on constructive math provide large discussion on its counterparts and summarize the differences. For an extreme example, an entire volume dedicated to this topic:
Large amount of works discuss the classical math in the more broad sense: as a list of results (mostly of the 19th century) underlying the modern mathematical research, a vocabulary that a mathematician has to know in order to understand the colleagues, for example:
Викидим (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any clear view on the issue of classical logic vs classical mathematical logic vs classical mathematics vs constructionist logic, or anything else along these lines.
However your second reference seems to use "classical mathematics" in the most informal way, the way one might equally say "the Pythagorean theorem is classical" or "the Atiyah-Singer theorem is, by now, classical." Although it's a word commonly used and understood by mathematicians in such ways, I don't think it has any particular meaning (in this context) which is systematic enough for a wiki article. That's not to say it doesn't have other meaning which might warrant it, I'm not taking a position on that. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no background in logic, so if a professional will state here that my #3 is incorrect, I will accept it, there is no need to argue the opposite at length. My observation that researchers treat the classical mathematics as a broader subject than the classical logic is based on phrases like "those who take the semantic paradoxes to motivate a retreat from classical logic to a non-classical logic usually assume that their logical reform leaves classical mathematics itself intact" (from Williamson, Timothy (2024). "Can Non-classical Logic Treat Mathematics as Exceptional?". Themes from Weir: A Celebration of the Philosophy of Alan Weir. Vol. 484. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54557-3_2. ISBN 978-3-031-54556-6., many similar ones are easy to find). Again, if this is some philosophical nonsense that I am taking at the face value, just let me know. Викидим (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the math world, the word "classical" is most often used to contrast older results or theory with more modern theory. This usage is both related to "classical mathematics" in distinction to constructive mathematics as well as "classical logic" in distinction to other logic. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Pool (software)

[edit]
Gene Pool (software) (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: N -- I can't find any sources that would establish notability. The creator of the article dePRODed this without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources which I assume are not independent? Does not look "uncontroversial", so dePROD was justified. IgelRM (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1-5 are primary -- they're from the creator of the software. Sources 6 and 7 just mention the software, which isn't sufficient to establish notability. The dePROD was not at all justified, but that's not what we're here to discuss. HyperAccelerated (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, the current references for the current article are primary sources that do not have online copies. There are no other independent, reliable sources that can be found online. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fascinating perhaps but not notable. A search in Google Books yielded results that at first glance could have proved interesting; on closer inspection they are all examples of the author describing his own work. No reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme 22:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it eyebrow-raising that the same editor who created this article created the article for Nuala Creed, the spouse of Jeffrey Ventrella, Gene Pool's creator. The same editor is also working on Draft:Virtual Body Language, another project of Jeffrey Ventrella's. This editor was almost completely dormant since 2017 and suddenly became active this year to work solely on articles related to Ventrella, and to insert links to these articles in other pages. Considering the linked website for Gene Pool is promoting NFTs, I have to wonder if there are shenanigans afoot. Of course, I could be wrong, and I don't want to accuse anyone unfairly – but it seems awfully suspicious to me. Perhaps there are conflicts of interest to declare? GhostOfNoMeme 22:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already asked the article's creator if they have a COI to declare but didn't receive a response. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't noticed your talk page message. Perhaps it's time to raise it on the conflict of interest noticeboard? GhostOfNoMeme 08:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I ran out of time to delve deeper, but if there are any independent sources, they would either be citations to a book chapter by the author like this list or currently used sources. The two sources at the end of the article12 do look like independent mention, though at least based on the article text, it sounds pretty cursory. I'd be curious what the sources actually say though before deletion though. It seems like there could be potential for notability, but I think it's leaning towards delete unless it becomes clear something was missed in looking through sources. KoA (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 21:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahir Vasquez

[edit]
Zahir Vasquez (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 enough coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't find any articles about him in RS, only statistics and news on the website of the club for which he plays. Tau Corvi (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pierce (musician)

[edit]
John Pierce (musician) (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 of Pierce in secondary sources is entirely lacking. Editors with access to offline music magazine archives may have better luck finding sources, but the total absence of anything more substantial than an interview or liner notes does not suggest to me that we should presume such coverage exists. As Pierce has worked with several bands, I don't think there is any single redirect target that would be appropriate, and that internal search results thus best serve readers searching for this title. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical chrétien

[edit]
Radical chrétien (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 GNG: The only candidate who used the "radical Christian" label is Rousseau, and contemporary coverage about him is not significant. Newspaper coverage shows that the three candidates in 1967 actually represented the Ralliement des créditistes, with the label "Créditiste". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the Keep views offer P&G-based rationale, and the page clearly does not qualify for "Speedy keep" under WP:SKCRIT. However, after almost three weeks, there is limited support for deletion, with no consensus likely to materialize by drawing this out any longer. Owen× ☎ 22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kade Ferris

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kade Ferris (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 believe this article should be deleted because it clearly fails WP:NOTE. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited sources are a bit thin but I wouldn't say it's 'clear' either way. Did you look for sources? The article lists several books authored by the subject, did you look for reviews per WP:NAUTHOR? – Joe (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I can't find anything to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I still stand by deleting this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope this article fails notability guidelines for authors too. It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think it was made by friends of the subject? Belbury (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The baseless accusations of bad faith and bias have me suspicious, and I also suspect that the keep side is engaged in stealth canvassing and votestacking to try and keep an article that clearly doesn't meet the Wikipedia GNG. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein Kade Ferris is the author. Charles Albert Bender = Chief Bender and is the subject of the biography. There are other reviews of that book too. Anyway I'm leaning keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chief Bender meets notability guidelines for his sports career while Ferris does not meet any Wikipedia notability guidelines. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article still seems to fail WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see how this article ceases to fail WP:NOTE WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it would be helpful to hear the three best sources. It seems like notability is marginal at best and it's hard to see through all the passing coverage. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe, thanks for asking. I'd say that these sources are strong: 1) Obit from the Indigenous news press, BobaaMaajimowinan (Telling of the News in Different Places) Red Lake Nation News [30]; 2) Obit in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Minnesota History (can be read on JSTOR via WP:LIB) [31]; 3) The Extra, a newspaper covering Red River Valley, eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota areas, on Ferris' book on Charles Bender [32]; 4) The Indigenous radio program, Minnesota Native News on Ferris' contributions to children's literature [33]; 5) Voice of America [34]; 6) Book review in American Indians in Children's Literature (which unfortunately is published thru blogspot, so it may not count since it's a blog) [35]; among others....please have a look at the improved article along with the current sourcing when you find a moment (sorry I don't have the time right now to list more). However there is less coverage but still solidly sourced: 3-minute PBS (Arizona) discussion with Ferris re: Indigenous reconciliation and cultural healing. The book review on Hogue's book on the Métis includes a quote Ferris as an expert on Métis culture. Some of the other sources are primary sources, such as press releases, or Indigenous human rights and environmental justice publications where he is called up on as an expert, for example this [36] from the Minnesota government's website. To my way of thinking he is clearly notable, and especially so in Indigenous Native American communities as an important leader and thinker, which is just as important as "mainstream American" culture. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    .... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area.  oncamera  (talk page) 10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.
Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just came across this AfD and don't entirely feel experienced enough with guidelines to vote either way, but I'd like to note that Ferris' work on map decolonization and geographic technologies (as THPO for the Red Lake Nation) was significant enough that he gave a full-fledged presentation at the Council for Minnesota Archaeology's 2023 annual conference, entitled "Creating a Virtual Database for Regional Tribal Resource Management and Consultation". I don't know if, for example, a program (with an abstract of his talk) from the conference (the most important one on Minnesota archaeology, as far as I know) would count towards GNG, but I do have such a document if uploading it somewhere could prove useful. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that giving a lecture or presentation at a conference is a stand-out event. Doing that is an ordinary part of an academic's job. The only exceptions would be instances where being selected to give the lecture is itself a high honor, like when a national academic society invites someone to do the Annual So-and-so Memorial Lecture. That can be an indication that the field regards the person's work as particularly important. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the question of notability per cited sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck the article. It's completely fine now. Yuchitown (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False. There are still zero WP:GNG-contributing sources: sources that provide in-depth content about Ferris, are written independently of their subjects, and are reliably published. None of the previous keep comments have even attempted to address those requirements of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kade Ferris was a distinguished archaeologist, anthropologist and historian, one of the first Indigenous archaeologists in the U.S. I've made some improvements, including adding a book review and an obit in an academic journal. He clearly meets criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and also nows meet GNG. As an aside, I find it really quite odd that the nominator would assume that It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject especially given the fact that such a new editor, with only 40 total edits (the majority of which were to the article or this AfD) would make such a comment. I guess I'm also a little curious how they learned by their 20th edit how to produce an AfD so quickly. Nominator, do you yourself have a connection to the subject of the article and why would you make such a statement? Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are tutorials on how to nominate discussions for AfD. I simply read them and the Wikipedia GNG in full. I also do think the keep side is possibly engaging in stealth canvassing to try and votestack to keep a article that clearly fails the GNG. The baseless accusations of bias have me suspicious. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding "Strong" in front of your !vote, or casting aspersions at the nom, will not give your view more weight. Highlighting sources that provide WP:SIGCOV will.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An obituary in a history journal and status as one of the first indigenous archaeologists are compelling. Good articles like this go a long way toward correcting long-standing biases on Wikipedia. 172.9.46.64 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What biases are you referring to? Are you implying that this is bias instead of this figure not meeting notability guidelines? Do you have any evidence of bias or is this a baseless accusation? This article was not nominated for deletion in bad faith. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been discussions on here and elsewhere in response to a scholarly paper written about the bias against topics about Indigenous people and history. Wikipedia Signpost. And Netherzone did bring up questions about how this account with limited edits would know how to nominate for deletion which was not addressed by the OP.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, there is one "delete" vote and three "keep" votes plus one "leaning keep." The article has been vastly improved since nomination. This conversation has dragged on for more than two weeks now. Yuchitown (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How much canvassing was done to try and prevent this article which clearly fails the Wikipedia GNG from being deleted was done I wonder? Not one person who voted "keep" has explained how Ferris's article meets the GNG, which it does not. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed his concerns just now. I have read the Wikipedia GNG, the AfD tutorial, and the section about stealth canvassing on Wikipedia, something I suspect is going on here with the keep side. The baseless accusations of bias and bad faith have me suspicious, and no one can tell me how the article meets the GNG. It seems to fall back on my edit count, which has nothing to do with the AfD discussion at hand. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never interacted with, knew, or worked for Ferris, but for a brief period I watched some of his work from afar. The history journal obit that IP 172.9.46.64 linked to is in my opinion good evidence of what I anecdotally have observed, which is that Ferris did some groundbreaking work that was recognized by his archaeologist and historian peers. Unfortunately for his Wikipedia article, Ferris also worked in an often-overlooked discipline (tribal historic preservation) that doesn't frequently make it into the kind of secondary sources that Wikipedia values for notability purposes. I think a good chunk of that is due to broader systemic biases, absolutely, but I suppose that's not what we're discussing here. Wikipedia's notability standards are likely different from what we as individuals may think makes a person notable. Even so, I think the journal Minnesota History writing "Kade was one of the first THPOs and native archaeologists in the country [....] His dedication to the work in the fields of history, archaeology, and tribal preservation led to his assistance in the development of many THPOs across the region" demonstrates notability by Wikipedia's standards. I can absolutely see how others may disagree, however. SunTunnels (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you agree the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia GNG. There are no systemic biases here. This article was nominated for deletion because it doesn't meet the GNG. Also I wonder how much stealth canvassing was going on to try and keep this article, since baseless accusations of bad faith deletion discussion and bias keep getting brought up. If there were bias why would I point out that Chief Bender clearly meets the GNG while Ferris does not? OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. The last two sentences of my Keep post clearly state that I believe Ferris meets notability standards, in this case GNG. I believe, given what I understand about WP:GNG, that (for example) the Minnesota History obit presents non-trivial coverage of Ferris by a reliable source (MNHS's historical journal) independent from Ferris himself. That is my stated position for the moment and I'm happy to engage in further discussion around that.
    Let me be clear in saying I do not believe you are personally biased in nominating Ferris' article here; I think you're just trying to improve Wikipedia in ways you believe are constructive, and I respect that. When I talk about systemic bias, I am referring to the very real issues Wikipedia broadly has in discussing and incorporating indigenous knowledge and indigenous history; see [37], or [38], or [39] for more. The way society at large treats indigenous knowledge, and the way it does or doesn't spotlight indigenous leaders and thinkers, is a real issue that I believe Wikipedia needs to grapple with at some point. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the specifics of this case; I just think it's good to be aware of, since it can affect how people like Ferris are written about in the kinds of sources Wikipedia values.
    If you believe Ferris fails GNG, that is perfectly understandable and you are welcome to make your case for that viewpoint — indeed you have here done so, although I'm not certain that writing seven different comments on this AfD page within the span of an hour is the best way to go about it. But that's just my two cents. As for your suggestions that stealth canvassing is taking place, I'd appreciate it if you could either substantiate such claims or refrain from making them. I can only speak for myself, but I found this discussion while I was Googling Kade Ferris for unrelated reasons and came across his Wikipedia article. I have not communicated with any other Wikiuser off-wiki about this Ferris discussion, and you can check for yourself that my talk page doesn't have any Ferris-related content (as of when I wrote this reply). Cheers. SunTunnels (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The article has clearly been improved since it was nominated and I'm suprised it hasn't been closed yet. I can't really fathom any reason to delete it now that it has a massive number of sources and clearly meets GNG.
PersusjCP (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How has it been improved? How does Ferris have lasting notability and meet the Wikipedia GNG? BTW I do suspect there might be a little canvassing going on to try and keep this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldDiddlyBop, How has it been improved you ask...... This is the state of the article when you nominated it for deletion: [40] - it was a short stub; and this is the state of the article now: Kade Ferris, which Rater Tool assesses at a "B" class. There is a very significant difference, and many reliable sources added in addition to the expansion of content. I'm not sure what you are looking at but it seems quite evident that the Heymann Standard clearly applies. WP:HEY. Read the sources in the current article to understand how he meets GNG, which cover more than five years.
Also, OldDiddly Bop, you never answered the question why you think this article was "made by friends of the article's subject" that kind of a claim would need to be backed up with diffs or evidence. And also please add diffs as to why you think there is canvassing going on. And why you think Votestacking is taking place. Please kindly respond to these inquiries and present evidence. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 21:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hung Heart

[edit]
Well Hung Heart (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find plenty of reviews, but they're on blogs. toweli (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific humidity capacity

[edit]
Specific humidity capacity (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)

Reviewed during NPP. Appears to be just seeking to create/post a neologism for certain aspects of existing thermodynamic principles. A search revealed only two hits on the term, both twitter posts by the same person who is an author of a paper which is the only reference for this article. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Billy Hughes

[edit]
Electoral history of Billy Hughes (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)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTSTATS - not really clear what purpose this page is serving. It's a series of transclusions (mostly unsourced) from pre-existing results pages. Have read a few biographies of Hughes and as far as I'm aware no one has analysed his electoral record as a discrete "topic". I T B F 💬 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was Australia's longest-serving federal MP, eight different parties including multiple leadership elections (all of which well documented) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoreHW

[edit]
CoreHW (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wP:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 11 references, 8 are their own websites, and 2 are brief database type listings. That leaves only 1 possible GNG reference (#5 per 7/7/24 numbers) and it's behind a paywall. (A paywall does not preclude it from consideration, it just means that I was unable to review but at best it would mean only one) Wording follows this pattern, sounds like only self-description.

North8000 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think to keep it and not to delete. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Senate election in West Virginia. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Elliott (politician)

[edit]
Glenn Elliott (politician) (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 local official and U.S. Senate candidate. All sources cited on the page are WP:ROTM coverage of his mayorship and Senate campaign. No real in-depth coverage of him as a person, and no indication that either his campaign or mayoral administration were considered especially notable by media outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Microplastic Consumer: Wheeling has a population under 30,000. The fact that it happens to be one of the largest cities in WV is irrelevant, being the mayor of a relatively small community does not establish notability. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL.BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from suggesting that other contributors have not read the relevant policies. There is no policy stating how large the population of a city must be for its mayor to be notable, and there are other factors here, because the subject is a major party nominee for national office—not, as you suggest below, the state legislature. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL, which states that "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." I heavily disagree that Elliott is guaranteed to receive in-depth national coverage, and even if that were true, it still wouldn't be a valid argument--we can't maintain a Wikipedia page on the basis that the subject might eventually become notable. Also, it should have been obvious that "the WV Senate page" meant the page for the 2024 Senate race in WV. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA before you tell people that they need to read policies they're already familiar with—as you've already done twice in this conversation. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for disagreeing with you besides pure ignorance. And it's not at all obvious that you knew what you were talking about, since "the WV Senate page" presumably refers to the page about the West Virginia Senate.
U.S. Senate races are not "run of the mill" items of no interest to most readers; that suggestion is not worthy of rebuttal. And I wasn't referring to potential future coverage, but to current and prior coverage. Mayors of major cities in a state and U.S. Senate races tend to generate a fair amount of news coverage; your nomination suggests that you haven't looked beyond the currently cited sources, which would mean that the nomination doesn't comply with WP:BEFORE.
You seem to be under the impression that only national news sources are relevant, while the Wheeling Intelligencer is not; but that is one of the main newspapers in the state, and in excluding its coverage from consideration, you're the one applying non-existent standards to reach a conclusion of non-notability. The notability guidelines expressly state that state and local politicians may be notable; they do not say that their notability depends on the existence or quantity of nationwide coverage. P Aculeius (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: Your interpretation of the rules seems to be that any mayor of a small city or U.S. Senate nominee is automatically notable. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. AfDs for local officials and U.S. Senate candidates succeed very frequently. Just off the top of my head: here's an AfD where a mayor of a city the same size as Wheeling lost his Wikipedia page, and here's an AfD where the GOP Senate nominee in Montana lost his Wikipedia page (and the Montana race is much more competitive than the WV race). Both of those examples are very recent and show that your interpretation of the rules is not shared by the wider community of editors. If you want, I could cite plenty more examples. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that "any mayor of a small city is automatically notable"; I said that "this two-term mayor of one of West Virginia's largest cities who is now the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate is sufficiently notable to keep." Please don't speak for me or, for that matter, for other editors—let them express their own opinions.
This article is not comparable to "Manny Cid", who is only one of eight candidates running for mayor of Miami-Dade County, having previously served as mayor of the unincorporated town of Miami Lakes, the 89th largest city in Florida, which has a council-manager government. There as here, the argument that local news coverage cannot be used to establish notability was made, and refuted. Why it's being asserted again here defies all reason. Some of those who voted to merge that article into the 2024 mayoral election for Miami-Dade County indicated that he would be sufficiently notable if he won—and became mayor.
It is more comparable to the example of Tim Sheehy, but with key differences: Sheehy is the operator of a small company in Montana that fights fires with planes and drones, not the two-term mayor of one of Montana's largest cities. The main contributor to the article had a close connection with the subject, while the second-biggest contributor concurred with redirection. Glenn Elliott has news coverage dating back to 2016 already cited in this article. P Aculeius (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the Defeated Candidates Zach Shrewsbury and Don Blankenship have pages. 2603:301F:2801:7C00:7437:901D:45CC:C3B5 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is completely irrelevant and not really even worth consideration. Also, this IP user's only edits are on this deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BottleofChoclateMilk, WP:WHATABOUT applies to you mentioning the two other deletions. The subject has the WP:3SOURCES from AP, The Hill, and The Intelligencer
Manny Cid has a fraction of the coverage as Elliott, and is from a much larger state too. 30,000 people in Florida is tiny while 30,000 in West Virginia can be considered a large city. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: I don't know where you got this idea that a mayor of a small city is automatically notable if that city happens to be located in a small state. That just doesn't make any sense. The Hill article you cited is WP:ROTM coverage, while the AP article is a little better but not proof of notability. Also, U.S. Senate nominees are not automatically notable; again, you are depicting your personal interpretation of the rules as fact. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung Cao (2nd nomination), where numerous editors used "U.S. Senate nominees are not automatically notable" as their reasons for favoring deletion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat—stop putting words in people's mouths. Nobody in this discussion has said either of the things that you keep repeating ad nauseam. I didn't cite any articles either, so stop telling me that what I didn't say can be ignored for reasons A, B, and C. You also shouldn't be relying on WP:ROTM as though it were policy; it's only an essay. And this race has significant national implications, since its outcome will help determine whether the Republican Party is able to gain control of the U.S. Senate. The coverage is not, "person nobody's ever heard of announces candidacy," but "prominent national figure endorses candidate for his successor; control of U.S. Senate hangs in balance". So this is far from "run of the mill", even if that were a policy—which it's not.
You should learn to respect other people whose opinions on how policies apply to a set of facts differ from yours, and to accept that yours isn't the only valid point of view. If other people disagree, it doesn't mean that you need to keep bludgeoning them with the same arguments over and over, as though you can negate someone's opinion by explaining that they're wrong and just don't understand the rules as well as you do. P Aculeius (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: You're making an argument that the Senate race is notable, not an argument that Elliott is notable. Every Senate election in history fits the definition of "will help determine whether the Republican Party is able to gain control of the U.S. Senate." Have Elliott or his campaign received extensive, in-depth coverage? If he loses, will people still be searching for him in 10 years? Your uncivil, angry tone isn't helping your argument. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, just stop—I already said I considered the facts sufficient to satisfy notability, I explained why when you argued I was wrong, and I replied to your arguments when you insisted I was wrong to continue to disagree with you. You're just not listening: you can't negate people's opinions by telling them why you think they're wrong over and over. Stop telling people they need to read the policy, stop putting words in their mouths, stop filling the discussion with straw men, and stop pinging people every time you reply, as though nobody can be expected to check on a discussion they're participating in. I gave my reasons, and I don't need to keep doing it over and over and argue with every reply you keep adding without anything changing. P Aculeius (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lord, calm down. Again, it's hard to have a civil discussion with someone who gets blisteringly angry over nothing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged me four times in less than 24 hours just to tell me that my reasons were wrong and that I needed to read policies I'm already familiar with, and assuming that I said things about policies that I plainly didn't say—multiple times, and now you're telling me repeatedly that I'm the problem for being uncivil and angry. It seems like you're the one who needs to learn how to participate in a talk page discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calming down BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: on the off-chance he wins the page can be reconstituted, as others have said it seems like routine coverage during an election campaign to what will be a decidedly uncompetitive race (most pollsters and forecasts have WV as a solid red flip, no polls have been conducted between Justice and Elliott. Elliott seems decidedly not notable as a result, even if he is a mayor of Wheeling, as others have also said, being a mayor of a town, any town or city, is not an inherently notable thing.
Talthiel (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the totality of coverage as Mayor of Wheeling, and the totality of coverage as a major party candidate running to represent West Virginia in the U.S. Senate—at the national level, I interpret the subject of this page to be notable under relevant policies within WP:NPOL. For the same reasons, I would argue coverage of the subject is also not WP:ROTM as it pertains to political candidates.:Timothy Bellman(talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that this user seems to have a personal connection to Elliott. He uploaded the posed, professional headshot of Elliott on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Democrats of America

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Progressive Democrats of America (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)

Most articles cited on this page are either pages from PDA's own website or articles about its founder. I can't find anything much better on Google; most coverage of PDA is passing mentions of it, usually when PDA teams up with a bunch of other progressive groups to release a "__ progressive groups call for __"-type press release. Previously nominated for deletion 18 years ago; I think it's time to reassess. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete: I find nothing wrong with the references in the footnotes. Some are scholarly works, some are from PDA sources. Nothing wrong with using those for an account of PDA. However, PDA is an active Progressive group in American politics. Cryptic suggestions to delete this useful, neutral article may have unmentioned motivationsThey should be carefully scrutinized. DrWJK DrWJK (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)DrWJK (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, your conspiracy theories make it seem like you're the one with a surreptitious bias. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I want to keep Wikipedia out of US politics. You? DrWJK (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was paid a hefty sum by the Trump campaign to nominate this page for deletion, as they believe the existence of this Wikipedia page poses an "imminent threat" to Trump's chances of victory. It's not much, but it's honest work BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— DrWJK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 00:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read N:ORG. That's what the nomination is about, not unmentioned motivations. Star Mississippi 11:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search in Google Scholar of "Progressive Democrats of America" turns up over 200 scholarly articles. This alone is significant coverage of a notable organization in US politics. (Read what I said about the footnotes to the Wikipedia article in the two or three sentences before "unmentioned motivations.") The "nomination for deletion" is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should be withdrawn or denied. DrWJK (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources connected with PDA absolutely cannot be used, nor can a google search. This will not be "denied" (which is also not a thing) so please either find appropriate sources or move on to another topic. Star Mississippi 00:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Calderón

[edit]
Mauro Calderón (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)

Discography directly copied from Draft:Mauro Calderón, which was moved to draft due to having no sources and being promotional/reading like an ad, and later recreated as an article with no improvements (arguably even less of an improvement) as there is nothing about his life at all here. All links are just to YouTube videos of the songs, which do not establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyowa

[edit]
Iyowa (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)

Checked through the sources, don't think this meets WP:COMPOSER. Although one of my favorite producers, he fails notability sadly. btw, heat abnormal is a banger. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Linda Joy Singleton#Strange Encounters. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Switch

[edit]
Sea Switch (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:NBOOK. Skipping PROD due to article length. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hampton, Virginia, mayoral election

[edit]
2016 Hampton, Virginia, mayoral election (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:NEVENT and WP:GNG for lacking significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a political database. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per run-of-the-mill non-notable local election. Also the winner of the election's article is also at AfD. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so is his predecessor in the same discussion. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Tuck

[edit]
Donnie Tuck (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 both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, as all coverage is WP:MILL, and he is a local politician. Wikipedia is not a politics database. I am also nominating George E. Wallace (Virginia politician) for the same reason, as the former mayor of the same city. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EGM Green

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
EGM Green (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)

Third time's a charm, I hope. This company has somehow survived two AfDs despite failing the notability guidelines for companies. The available sources are thinly-veiled press releases, not providing genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the sources are not very reliable and they (including the article itself) all seem like a big advetisement. Have you found any good sources anywhere that are reliable? Because I don't believe this exactly needs to be deleted, but it might be able to be improved. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a thorough look in all the usual places you'd expect to find sources on this sort of company and found no decent sources. They're all either associated with the company or regurgitating its press releases. – Teratix ₵ 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think a delete is a viable option. Everything about this corporation is a big ad. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 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 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Press releases pop up about once every 5-6 years in the card gaming press. Not enough business traction for notability. MNewnham (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Thomas Lockley (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 seem to pass GNG or even SNG. His work may be notable, he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the deletion proposal has been compromised by it trending on Twitter/X, as I found out about the proposed deletion of this page through my Twitter/X feed.
Example: https://x.com/GiveMeBanHammer/status/1814652541755662480 Obversa (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually should have CSD'd as its been deleted before. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion seems to have happened 6 years ago, back when his Yasuke book was yet to reach the other side of the pond. He and his work have since become much more notable since then, for better or worse. It's better we keep this page for that reason alone. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal also appears to have been compromised by it trending on Twitter/X: https://x.com/GiveMeBanHammer/status/1814652541755662480. Due to this, I also think it is better to keep the page for now due to possible interference by non-Wikipedians for or against the deletion of the page. Obversa (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If outsiders notice it, it's fine, and not really a reason in and of itself for one course of action or another. Most people here are names I recognize. SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant coverage and reviews of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke including in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Author meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to point out that I think this policy is REALLY wrong-headed or at least used in ways not intended. The wording for 1-4 are vague and utterly subjective, and you can make a case for literally every author ever since almost every book gets a review somewhere at some point, and the definition of a PhD is to create new knowledge, and academics write on subject matter. It amounts to saying the person is an academic. It's a carte blanche to make thousands of Wikipedia pages on nobodies who no one has ever heard about. There absolutely has to be SOME requirement that SOME news source SOMEWHERE covered the actual person and not just some review of the book. Like it or not, Tia Tequila is more notable than 99.9% of humanity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is actually 100% on point. The notability of creative people like artists and writers is determined by what they create. Many creative people also avoid publicity and the limelight, which is one of the reasons why this policy was developed. As for reviews, the gold standard are reviews from notable media sources like Publishers Weekly. As a result, we don't just accept any random review out there. SouthernNights (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy as written seems to be meant for a very, very, small niche of elite people, whereas it's more or less used that any author and academic deserves a Wikipedia page. In fact I'm hard pressed to see how ANY author or PhD would fail this test. If someone gets a PhD or writes a book on a subject, they're defacto an expert, and if they publish any work it's gonna get reviews. So we end up with thousands upon thousands of perma-stub wikipedia pages on utter nobodies. So somehow it doesn't matter that there's literally never been a SINGLE article anywhere on this person or a complete dearth of biographical information other than a 1-2 sentence bio from the publisher.
    "Many creative people also avoid publicity and the limelight" ie 100 non-notable. And that notability isn't derived from their works, so if a book gets reviews it's the BOOK that should get a page, not the author! The advocates of this policy seem to cite morality, that it's a moral good to have pages on "important" figures like academics and scientists because otherwise the site would be filled with biographies on celebrities. And there's some projects that seem to make it their lifes mission to make these kind of pages to right some historical wrong. But that is just how notability works. Tia Tequila is more notable than most of humanity, and that is fine. These academics should be seen as SOURCES not subjects for Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think having a single well reviewed book is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. By this standard almost any academic who has published a book (which tend to be frequently reviewed in academic journals) would be notable. His citation record is quite weak [45] Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on keep due to now increased notability as mentioned here and by Silver seren. SmallMender (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:Author as explained by SouthernNights. His work is notable, and his authorship of one of his works has been widely recognized - this is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting this article is much less intellectually honest and useful than documenting how (Redacted). Wikipedia is ought to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is ought to tell the truth. 122.213.236.124 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/refocus article on book. Google scholar profile shows citations are nowhere near enough to pass WP:PROF [46]. A single book is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, though the book clearly passes WP:NBOOK. I would recommend this article be reworked to focus primary on the book, similar to the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemiauchenia, there's a major difference between a book that received just a few reviews and one that received a ton internationally. Which is why WP:AUTHOR doesn't refer to multiple books being the sole requirement of #3, but that a well-known work singular can be enough. Anyways, here I go.
And that's just from a Google search and ProQuest (and the main WPL one, which I didn't expect to find anything at all, surprised about the Geographical result), without even trying any variant searches or anything to tease out deeper stuff. SilverserenC 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you know, the second book and stuff I pointed out just below. SilverserenC 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation counts from Google Scholar or any other such index are less informative in the humanities than they are in the sciences. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lockley has a second book that came out as of two months ago, A Gentleman from Japan, and though it is still rather new, there's still a fair number of reviews out, even in that short time period. Interestingly, there's also an older article from several years back covering his research on this newly released book. As for him personally, there's plenty of articles related to his first book release that include biographical details about him, such as this article from the Mainichi Shimbun. So I fail to see how he doesn't meet the requirements of both the WP:GNG and, if it matters, WP:AUTHOR. Heck, per #3, I would say his first book more than blows out of the water the "significant or well-known work" requirement, as the amount of reviews of the book across international media are really too many to count. The list would be incredibly long. SilverserenC 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The many reviews of both Yasuke and A Gentleman linked above by Silver seren meet my usual standard for WP:AUTHOR: multiple published reviews each of multiple books. There appears to be a lot of race-related drama over this subject on the net, in Japanese media [47] [48], and at WP:ANI, on which I have no informed opinion, but that should not compromise our standards for notability. To the contrary, if any of that can be backed by reliable sources it would only increase notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person in question is currently the focus of the current Assassin's Creed Shadow's controversy with relevant discussions bombarded with near-live updates from sketchy twitter sources about the author to discredit him. There have been reports exclusive to unreliable sources and twitter that he has been either fired or is under investigation by Nihon University - but he is still listed on Nihon's website and this week was part of an editorial comission for Britannica's page on Yasuke. I do not wish to derail this into a wallpost of whether Lockley is a reliable source or not (there is already an RSN for that), but rather to show that the subject of the article is currently undergoing a media frenzy where a lot of claims made are fabricated or unverified, relevant wiki discussions are being flooded with SPA's that violate BLP at this person, and to ultimately suggest that Lockley's page should follow a 'wait-and-see' approach until (at the earliest) the ANI has concluded, sanctions on the topic are imposed, or it gets raised to Arbcom as has been suggested as a possibility. Relm (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The off-site links posted above show a lot of interest in this page and the Yasuke page, for whatever reasons. I worry that this off-site interest will just cause headaches. I say keep it as is, until all of this current popularity is gone. Then reassess if needed, which I'm not sure of; based on other comments about the authors upcoming works and general notability. Hooples (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Refocus per Hemiauchenia's comment. BLP1E seems to apply here and that 1E is his book. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might make sense if he had only one published and reviewed book, but there are two. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montreux Healthcare Fund

[edit]
Montreux Healthcare Fund (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:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage about the fund itself. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana National Film Authority

[edit]
Ghana National Film Authority (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)

Insufficient references. At least three references about the main subject must all meet WP:SIRS. I don't see any that do. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Cycling. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Liška

[edit]
Martin Liška (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)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2004 Summer Olympics as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG.

This AfD might be exactly the same issue as with Peter Kondrát I nominated back in January under my old username (CuteDolphin712). Since Martin Liška was born in Brno, Czech Republic, but represents Slovakia, I don't know which language of source is primary.

  • The only decent site I found in Slovak language is SME but it looks nowhere near significant.
  • Oddly enough, Czech media IDNES (2016, 2018, 2022) and Czech Television have articles of a horseback rider of the same name. However, the first source by IDNES tells said jockey turned 39 thus clearly not the same men as this cyclist. Without evidence of cyclist Liška being a horse jockey in his hometown, this case fails WP:V.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW close. I see no support for Keeping this article except from blocked sockpuppets. All other editors support Deletion so I'm closing this discussion early to end it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiten Dharpure

[edit]
Hiten Dharpure (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)

Dharpure has achieved a couple of obscure records recognized by the "India Book of Records" and the "Worldwide Book of Records", neither publication notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Given the number of newspaper clippings posted by the article's author at Commons (now mostly nominated for deletion as copyright violations), it is likely that this is an autobiography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked multiple accounts that appear to be operated by a single individual and semi-protected this AfD to prevent any more attempts at vote stacking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Yes, it seems to be written by themselves or on their behalf but this what I found on Instagram of Sakal News, with likes of 7,647 people. [49] WikiDan404 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *::Respected Editor, I was known of that person and I contacted him to collect the Information and made the new Article. If it seems to be Written by himself so, that's wrong. But if it seems like that so no problem. I was also known of him by Social Media Only. The Editor committee (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:I think this should article should exists as what I had read and Checked the Article and found the work done by him at such less age. [50][51] WikiDan404 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *:Respected Editor, I found this video of his Robots Dancing Altogether [52] and making robot at this age made me to make an Article for him. If it doesn't agree to policies so no problem. The Editor committee (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::I found this on Instagram of Sakal News, liked by 7,647 people. [53] WikiDan404 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC) <:::Not only is Instagram an unreliable source, but the amount of people who liked it is completely meaningless here. Procyon117 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC) ::::Respected Editor, That's Right. Actually I found this in his account on Facebook that he was felicitated twice by Hon'ble Union Minister of Road and Transport, Nitin Gadkari for his achievement that why I have added that.[54][55] The Editor committee (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:https://www.instagram.com/p/C8ip_V2hrHq/?igsh=Z2lwOWJ5ODJhZGdk WikiDan404 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *::Respected Editor, I found this that he was covered by Media and felicitated twice by Hon'ble Union Minister of Road and Transport, Nitin Gadkari that's why I have added an New Article by looking his work with age. [56][57][58][59][60][61] The Editor committee (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *Not to Delete. I think that it should not be deleted as it was covered by Newspapers. --Wikitopeople (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)— Wikitopeople (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *:Actually it seems to written by themselves or on behalf on someone but from my side I found this [62] which made myself to support this Article. WikiDan404 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *::Respected Editor, It can also be seen at different platforms. [63][64][65] The Editor committee (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete. He gained huge popularity as I found that it was published on Instagram of Sakal News, which is liked by 7,647 people. Link to check the Likes on Instagram --WikiDan404 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)— WikiDan404 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*:He was felicitated twice by Hon'ble Union Minister of Road and Transport, Nitin Gadkari.[66] [67] as mentioned by @The Editor committee. WikiDan404 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *:Respected Editor, I have made this Article on basis of Media Coverage and his twice felicitations done by Hon'ble Union Minister of Road and Transport, Nitin Gadkari.[68][69] The Editor committee (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Respected Editor, The evidences can be checked and proofed as that make me to write the Article. [70][71][72][73][74][75][76] The Editor committee (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Respected Editor @WikiDan61, Thanks for your review. I respect and follow the Wikipedia Rules and Policies, if it seems to be not eligible, so no problem. It's my pleasure that you worked for it. The Editor committee (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC) *Not to be deleted. I think it should not be deleted. --The Editor committee (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: The Editor committee (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. *should not be deleted. The things provided above gives an clear information regarding person. --Unknewed (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)— Unknewed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *:@RangersRus I am new for Contributions of Information on Wikipedia and this is my first Reply in Discussion as it is seen first and at top. Unknewed (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and do not delete It should not be deleted as everything is true with no false Information as given with Citations and has notability. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)— Wikicontriiiiibute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: Ignoring the sockpuppet investigation and the potential COI. I agree that the sourcing isn't reliable. I think WP: BLP1E applies here as well -- the achievements of the subject have not received coverage that is lasting or significant. Instagram and Facebook are not reliable sources, full stop. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Respected Editor, Kindly check the updates made recently. The Editor committee (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Respected Editor, Now kindly check the recent edits. The Editor committee (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Respected Editor, Kindly find the changes made now with Necessary citation and Notability criteria with more addition of Achievement. The Editor committee (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC) *Don't Delete. It seems that some additions have been made. It should not be deleted as of now it didn't satisfies WP: BLP1E. there are sufficient achievements to be notable with ture coverages and citations that follows WP:NTEMP. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC) *Keep and Don't Delete. As the recent changes made which answers the objections taken above. hence, it should no be deleted. EditingSquirrel (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Luxembourg

[edit]
Indians in Luxembourg (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 GNG, 2 of the 3 sources are dead. The estimated population is very small at around 1000, and no significant coverage of their contribution to Luxembourg society. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider renaming this to the Indian Association of Luxembourg.
There appears to be significant sourcing for that at least.
[77] [78] [79] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K added a few sources, but still not convinced its quite notable. This article still has massive amounts of texts that are unsourced. As far as I can tell, its mostly been anon IPs adding random bits of info. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody else can find useful sourcing, i'll vote Delete Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLEND

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
BLEND (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 doesn't show notability, and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. It's all routine announcements and trivial coverage, mainly in press releases. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 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 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mosab Al Khateeb

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mosab Al Khateeb (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)

Moved from WP:AFC after decline, fails WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this Wikipedia is about a Jordanian singer who enjoys wide fame in the Arab world and is alive. I ask you to approve this Wikipedia and not delete it. It will be amended and more will be added over time from reliable sources. Thank you. Mohdkhatttab (talk) 08:26, 14 July 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 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IGN#IGN Con. ✗plicit 11:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Convention

[edit]
IGN Convention (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:NEVENTS, only lists 10 sources, half of them are YouTube. The notability tag was put in 10 years ago, no fix till now. MK at your service. 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the discovery of more sources during the AfD. I am now confident it can pass GNG in some form. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magik

[edit]
Magik (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 character was recently moved to primary topic despite her notability being extremely weak. The majority of reception is from content farm-related sites such as ScreenRant that don't really distinguish between major and incredibly minor comic book characters. At least in the Video Game WikiProject, we consider Looper/CBR unreliable and ScreenRant inadmissible, leaving almost no reception that passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reception section may be weakly referenced, but that doesn't disqualify the whole article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UtherSRG: The article is mostly plot summary when you put aside the reception. So I would say the entire article is pretty much disqualified if the reception fails notability, unless there is something I missed? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think Looper+SyFy are enough (in-depth, go beyond plot summaries). Looper is not a great source, but this depends on the particular article; that one seems relatively well written and signed by non-anon writer. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus Looper is considered an unreliable source, and a content farm at best. I wouldn't consider it a viable source for this discussion, even if it's well written. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Zxcvbnm: Were Google Books and Google Scholar included in the WP:BEFORE search? I don't yet have time look into this myself more closely, but these searches look promising, as do the individual hits of Marvel's Mutants - The X-Men Comics of Chris Claremont and Superheroines and the Epic Journey, p. 244-249. Daranios (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those appear to be talking about Magik (1983 comic book), I think, which shares the same name as the character. Would not be surprised if the comic were notable, but character wasn't. I did find an entry for her in the DK Marvel Encyclopedia, but it has no actual critical reception, raising WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns, and a couple of SIGCOV are not yet sufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm Did you look into this query? It seems promising, but I am tired today and don't have time to access paywalled sources. Ex. [80] "But his discussion of Illyana Rasputin’s ‘Magik’ saga devolves into a patchwork of radical" (and others). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: As you were looking for another extended source, what do you think of The New Mutants - Superheroes and the Radical Imagination of American Comics, the chapter mostlyl dedicated to the character and her implications p. 248-266? Not all of it is accessible (to me), and there is quite a bit of plot summary, but it is quite a number of pages and p. 248 already has important analyis. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for actually being rational and not assuming I am some grudge-filled troll. From what I can see, it does count as significant coverage, though it is coverage for Ilyana and her alter-egoes, not just Magik. This seems to imply the page should be renamed to her actual name. I might attempt to do that, but either way it does seem like notability has been shown with Syfy, the DK encyclopedia and this source, so I will voluntarily withdraw the nom, though I can't close it unless @Pokelego999: also agrees so as not to be a supervote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm I'm satisfied with the sourcing found and am willing to change my vote to Keep so as to avoid a supervote and allow you to withdraw it for further work on the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. I did a brief search myself and found little, though ping me if anyone finds anything that could be considered significant. Any of the sources brought up have very little backing beyond a potential one or two. There's some coverage, but she appears to fall short of the coverage threshold. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nom once again seems triggered by prejudice against a certain medium and the idea of cleanup work. Only done a very quick Google (like the nominator *rimshot*) but there seems to be a bit more for Illyana Rasputin rather than the code-name. My X-Men is faded but IIRC she spent a good chunk of time not as a Majik, and was referred to by name an unusually high amount for the period. Possibles: - [81] [82][83] [84][85] Presumably those don't count for some nebulous reason, though. And then there's the pile of reliable publications focusing on Bronze and Copper Age comics that shock fucking horror aren't indexed on Google - Amazing Heroes, Back Issue and Wizard are right in the wheelhouse of an X-Men character. But I'm not putting more effort into a vote than someone has into the nom. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim of "triggered by prejudice" is WP:ADHOMINEM and outright false. It's unbelievable how you would accuse someone of hardly looking for the subject while then putting a list of sources featuring brief mentions and failing to expound.
    Unfortunately I can't access most of these due to copyright, but from the ones I could see, it still seems trivial. Which ones have SIGCOV here, exactly? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clutch those pearls. Not putting more work into a vote than you've put into a nomination. Not re-gearing my work because you like video games more than comics. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the claims of @UtherSRG:, @Piotrus:, and @BoomboxTestarossa:. If the article is saved, a brief mentioning of Amanda Sefton operating as Magik can be listed in a section called "Other characters named Magik" in light of this recent renaming. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The book The Ages of the X-Men: Essays on the Children of the Atom in Changing Times mentions Magik on pages 169, 227, and 229. It looks like they may have a mention or two in the book The Claremont Run: Subverting Gender in the X-Men. Definitely mentions in the book The Psychology of Superheroes. Also mentions in How Superheroes Model Community: Philosophically, Communicatively, Relationally and Antiheroes: Heroes, Villains, and the Fine Line Between. You can find these results here. (I find this kind of search better than just Google Books.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So in summary we have coverage of the character as such, as well as coverage focussing on her What If? chapter (e.g. Polygon) and her own series, which also have something to say on the character even if that's not the man topic. So in total I see the notability requirement as fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD lays bare inherent problems with the way the system is used by some nominators.
    • Before it was nominated there appear to have been no cleanup tags warning of the content issues on the page.
    • The nominator has likewise not engaged by making queries or suggestions on the talk page, and in short has made absolutely no attempt to put any effort into improving the article, or make any other editors aware of their reservations.
    • Of course, you don't have to do any of that, but it's hard to assume good faith when an experienced editor ignores those steps in favour of escalating to AfD, which means everyone interested in the page suddenly has to jump through hoops for a week on the whim of one editor.
    • Tagging an article for deletion or nominating for AfD takes seconds; properly researching a page - especially if we're not talking just mashing three words into a search engine, and using paper resources - can take hours or even days, and whoever's doing the research may already be researching something else. It basically forces an issue no-one was aware even was an issue 72 hours ago.
    • As we're talking about a fictional character from a major publisher with clearly *some* degree of notability that would leave the term some use as a redirect or a merge to a list article/page, but again that has been ignored in favour of nominating for deletion. Unless, of course, the nominator is gaming the system and thinks it should be a redirect or merge, and is using the AfD process to force the issue. Again, assuming good faith can be challenging in such circumstances.
    • AfDs (at least in Comics & Animation) are mainly contested by the same 6-8 people, most of whom just pick an entrenched position; AfDs are a niche area for many editors, and the process gives a disproportionate say to the dogmatic. Most of whom who then do absolutely none of the work their nominations have created for others.
    • AfD has its' uses but honestly over the past year or two flaws in the mechanism are becoming obvious, and processes put in place to swiftly remove obvious spam/advert/troll pages are being misused. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is making the mistaken assumption that a certain amount of work can save a non-notable page from removal, if I thought it was feasible to save the article I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place.
    I fully admit it may end up as a keep result due to various obscure sources found during the process, but at the time of nomination there was nothing immediately evident online or in the article that it passed GNG. If it does it would be entirely due to sources discovered afterwards by significant research that the article creator did not do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an assumption that many potentially notable pages need people actually making calm, patient, friendly evaluation of their notability rather than some passing random just yelling "DELETE!!1!1!". Obviously there are pages out there with questionable notability, but you've made no attempt to actually objectively see if this is one of them in any sort of constructive manner. You've just tried to put everyone in a ticking clock situation, sat back and demanded people jump through your hoops.
    • There are the "obscure sources" that I turned up in five minutes on Google on my phone. At work. And it's still not entirely clear why they didn't show up in your Before search.
    • It is highly, highly possible that the various article editors were unaware of the various nebulous, shifting definitions of what sources are and aren't admissible (CBR used to be a pretty decent site, for instance). There's no reason to assume anyone editing the article recently was totally unaware of any issues with the sourcing or notability because no-one had actively raised any concerns until you slapped a deletion notice on it one day. I mean, for someone who seems to take great umbrage about my assumptions you don't seem shy of making them about other people.
    • Wikipedia's standards have shifted dramatically over the past few years, and there are tools to help work with the wide number articles that could do with being raised to them. Tag it as better sources needed or whatever, give it a month, let someone who knows something, anything about the area have a look. There might not be an official process but there's an array of sensible, good faith steps that can be taken - otherwise it looks like you just randomly want an article about a particular X-Men character GONE RIGHT NOW, which naturally makes it look like it's just on your shitlist for some reason (to be fair, the whole Darkchild thing was repetitive as fuck).
    • That you only searched online shows a lack of basic knowledge of the medium - many heavyweight comics sources like CBJ (and thus Amazing Heroes, which is defunct but owned by Fantagraphics) and Back Issue! do not maintain full online archives for profitability reasons, and the same goes for a lot of books due to low print runs.
    • This again reflects poorly on your Before, and therefore your ability to judge the feasibility of saving articles. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of this non policy based, totally irrelevant yelling about how bad Wikipedia is, just please tell me the single best source you have found that is not Syfy. I will gladly withdraw the article if there is a clear and obvious SIGCOV I missed, demonstrating my good faith. I think just one more will put it over the edge into notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again - not jumping through your arbitrary hoops. And you withdrawing this is meaningless - you've already wasted enough of everyone's time with your shoddy nomination and subsequent evasion of questions, and your judgement in this particular area is clearly suspect. Going through the sources people have already posted would be a way of demonstrating your good faith. I mean, it should be easy - they would have all shown up in any halfway competent BEFORE undertaken for abrupt outright deletion of a long-standing article with many contributors, so it should be really, really easy for you to dismiss them.
    Wikipedia is not bad. It's great, but a lot of it is built on people being cooperative and constructive; like most nice things, it's just vulnerable to people who want to tear stuff down. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martinair Cargo destinations

[edit]
List of Martinair Cargo 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)

Fails WP:NOT, , WP:NCORP, and what I'm going to call the "you're joking, right?" test.

Let's take the last of those first: this is a cargo airline. Realistically they're going to fly where ever you pay enough money to send things to. Moreover this is overwhelmingly a list of places where this airline does not fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated". You're joking, right?

The WP:NOT failure is very clear: this is an exhaustive listing of company services and so fails under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It's also a listing of all services this company offered and so is indiscriminate information under WP:IINFO. I could go on with the WP:NOT failures (original research is a big one BTW) but it would be tiresome.

The WP:NCORP failures are also easily described: there is no evidence at all that a listing of all of the services offered by a cargo company as of April 2020 (or ever, actually) is a notable topic that should be covered in an encyclopaedia. None of the sources in the article meet WP:ORGIND because they all are ultimately sourced solely to the company and are coverage in local/industry press. Taking them one-by-one:

  1. The MartinAir website (which actually doesn't have the information it is used to cite...)
  2. The Best Travelstore website - a travel agent.
  3. A 404 link to a page on the Hong Kong Department of Trade and Commerce.
  4. A 404 link to a page on the website of the Journal of Commerce.

Even as a WP:SPLITLIST this page has to have stand-along notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT which this clearly does not. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Cargo routes get substantially less interest than passenger routes so I don't think this needs a standalone article or one structured with this kind of table, but Martinair#Destinations should still provide information about the airline's services. However per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations, this does not violates NOT: it is a narrow, discriminate topic without inappropriate detail; it is not "A resource for conducting business" and so the straightforward listing is not a forbidden catalogue; the fact that it's poorly sourced does not make it original research – no one did their own unverifiable analysis of anything. Reywas92Talk 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our coverage does not depend on whether a topic is popular or not. Which services that are sourced in the article do you think should be merged? The vast majority of the services that the airline actually operates are not sourced at all, I don't see any reliably-sourced content here that can be merged that is not already in the main article about the airline.
    Is it verifiable that the services were operated and then "Terminated"? No. Linking to this source and saying that the destinations are now "terminated" is pure OR. As is saying that the services are being operated based on a bare link to this page - you can't see that ANY of these services are actually being run based on that page.
    In what way is listing every destination the airline ever flew to discriminate? FOARP (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:
–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;
–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Air Charter destinations

[edit]
List of European Air Charter 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)

Clear failure of WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common-sense.

Starting with common-sense first: this is, as the name of the airline clearly states, a charter airline - it will fly to whereever you charter it to fly to so long as you pay enough. The destinations it serves are literally the whole world.

Moving on to WP:NOT, this is clearly an exhaustive list of company services and so is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of all the services that this airline possible offered at some point, which makes it indiscriminate information excluded under WP:IINFO. I could also throw in WP:PROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE, and a bunch of other headings that this fails under.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by European Air Charter are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. Only one source is cited in the article - the company website - and in reality any other source is going to be industry/local press coverage based on press-reports and company statements.

Even if this is considered a WP:SPLITLIST of the European Air Charter page, it still has to meet the requirements for a stand-alone page per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which this page manifestly does not. And again, a charter airline does not have fixed destinations so what is the point of this listing anyway? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sta-Prest

[edit]
Sta-Prest (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)

Sta-Prest does not seem to be notable enough in and of itself to justify a standalone article. Notability seems to largely come from the fact that it's a product of a notable company, Levi Strauss & Co, rather than being a notable product DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete: there is no reliable secondary source to show its notability! Instant History (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keemokazi

[edit]
Keemokazi (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)

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Rugby League

[edit]
Midwest Rugby League (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)

Article has minimal sources and said sources only talk about exhibition games ahead of planed launches of the competition. Google search only bring up the Wikipedia page, Facebook page, and USARL Page which has nothing on it. Fails WP:GNG. Mn1548 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kris McLaren

[edit]
Kris McLaren (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:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. C679 07:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Bangla

[edit]
TV9 Bangla (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)

Only press releases. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Gujarati

[edit]
TV9 Gujarati (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)

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Guerrero (lineman)

[edit]
Alex Guerrero (lineman) (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:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. - Although subject may meet WP:NGRIDIRON as stated in the last AfD (2011), this does not establish sufficient notability. C679 06:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: Did you mean to mention a second source, other than The Idaho Statesman? C679 11:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add [[88]] in addition to the other Idaho Statesman source. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keiichi Misawa

[edit]
Keiichi Misawa (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:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Previously deleted by PROD. C679 03:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Iloski

[edit]
Eric Iloski (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 enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Driver

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chris Driver (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:SPORTSCRIT. 2 sources provided are primary. Found nothing searching ["Chris Driver" mauritius -wikipedia] LibStar (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orthobifastigium

[edit]
Orthobifastigium (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 sources can be found about orthobifastigium. Google Scholar is nearly empty [89], and so does the Google Books [90]. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Bicupola_(geometry)#Set_of_orthobicupolae where it is mentioned. I was unable to verify this term outside of Wikipedia or sources connected to Wikipedia. If the term does exist independently of WP and basic info is correct in Bicupola_(geometry)#Set_of_orthobicupolae, then a redirect seems reasonable. Otherwise, without any verifiability, the article should be deleted and the entry in the Bicupola article should be struck. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mark viking The fact that no sources mentions about orthobifastigium at all, even if we put them in that table but no supported citations could be regardless as not notability. In other words, we do have articles as in triangular orthobicupola, square orthobicupola, and pentagonal orthobicupola; sources do have them, but the orthobifastigium, or supposedly known as digonal orthobicupola, does not. Because, why would somebody give new terms, whereas Google Scholars or Google Books never mention them at all? Like, we don't even know what other properties are, or names that may used in the mathematics community. Old revisions were just baffling, creating new terms or facts without a formal agreement explanation by the expert mathematicians in many published books or journals. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find nothing in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor, I don't see any references. Nothing near for what we need for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If neither Google Scholar nor Google Books support it, and the sole reference provided doesn't even include its alleged name on the page, then does it even exist at all? I mean, sure the shape itself exists but has anybody given it this name and written about it Reliably? Is it actually an encyclopaedic subject? So far, we have no evidence that they have so it's a delete unless anybody can find something that Google has missed. Does it have an alternative name? I think that would be the only thing that could possibly save this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_17

Leave a Reply