Terpene

thcscience_admin
< August 25 August 27 >

Purge server cache

United States Virgin Islands women's national under-18 softball team

[edit]
United States Virgin Islands women's national under-18 softball team (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)

Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this team to meet the WP:NTEAM, WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Salavati-Niasari

[edit]
Masoud Salavati-Niasari (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)

Nominated per WP:NACADEMIC, some relevant information will follow in the comment below. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a scholar in the field of chemistry / chemical engineering with excessive publication output (1084 items per Dimensions.ai, link requires login).
There is a retraction for image concerns. 36 articles by Salavati-Niasari received comments on PubPeer, typically for image and content concerns. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, none of these asserts notability. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not going to support this BLP until an explanation is available for the unusual GS citation record and the retractions Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    @Xxanthippe, I'd be curious what you make of what I found below in academic databases. This is definitely an odd situation outside the "norm" of already iffy measures of notability by citation metrics, but I just get more questions than answers as I dig. KoA (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me that the subject has notability, albeit not verified by the references. If they have somehow falsified data (etc) and thus retracted papers, then that fact, if in sufficient volume, is likely to confer notability, also notoriety. This should be recorded in the very stubby article. Otherwise their papers appear at first sight to have sufficient citations themselves to qualify under WP:NACADEMIC. I note the comments in the link provided by the nom, and feel they may indicate 'lack of scientific rigour'. I leave this as a comment rather than a !vote because I do not feel able to reach a conclusion on this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose to proceed with deletion at this time. One retraction is quite weak to imply notability / notoriety of the subject, and references to their PubPeer record are contestable through WP:NOR.
    If any significant number of retractions arrives in the future, then we will have a firm reason to restore the page. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm seeing a red flag with the citation counts here too and tried to do some poking around on more reliable databases like Scopus or Web of Science. At their peak, they somehow put out over 100 papers in a single year. In Scopus you can remove self-citations by the author and their co-authors, and this often removes about 1000 citations per year. There still appears to be citations that fall outside this category, but it does play a part.
What's a bigger red flag for me is that they are last/corresponding author on 84% of papers, but first author only on 16% of papers checking Web of Science (apparently never a regular co-author/contributor). Maybe it's an irregular power structure thing at their university, but claiming corresponding editor on that many papers seems to suggest they are getting credit for work they didn't directly do beyond a typical corresponding author situation. At least in this case, I would say the citation metrics part of WP:NACADEMIC is not reliable standalone for notability, so I'd be inclined to say delete considering everything else I've seen here. KoA (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the last few years there has been a vast increase in citation gaming, see Research paper mill, which tends to bamboozle inexperienced editors. If in doubt Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

South Africa women's national under-18 softball team

[edit]
South Africa women's national under-18 softball team (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 independent, third party coverage uncovered for this subject to meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG. The only sources in the article now are primary. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Survival

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

I have not been able to find sources for NBOOK. I have searched for sources using Google, Google Scholar, Google News, ProQuest, JSTOR, and Newspaper Archive. Newspaper.com may provide additional insight, but I'm receiving errors. I would suggest redirecting to Super Mystery if notability cannot be established. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searched on Newspaper.com, no non-passing mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryfle

[edit]
Tryfle (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:NMUSICIAN. No sign of notability. C F A 💬 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Games (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys)

[edit]
Dangerous Games (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to find sources for NBOOK. I have searched for sources using Google, Google Scholar, Google News, ProQuest, JSTOR, and Newspaper Archive. Newspaper.com may provide additional insight, but I'm receiving errors. I would suggest redirecting to Super Mystery if notability cannot be established. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searched on newspapers.com, no non passing mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Waves (novel)

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

I have not been able to find enough sources for NBOOK. I found one source that mentions Shock Waves but only in passing. I have completed a general Google search, as well as searches on Google Scholar, ProQuest, JSTOR, Newspaper Archive, and Google News. Newspaper.com may provide additional insight, but I'm receiving errors. I would suggest redirecting to Super Mystery if notability cannot be established. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searched on newspapers.com, got no reliable hits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Robot Wars robots

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on selective merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (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)

Delete: Article is based upon false premise that the perpatrators are "muslim" nor are there sufficient primary or secondary sources to base the assumption that they are motivated by their faith, nor do we have primary or secondary sources to even affirm the perpatrators faiths. The gangs mentioned throughout are not all even "asian" or therefore "muslim". The article would best be served being incorprated into the existing CSE in the United Kingdom page where there is a section on grooming. This article does nothing but indlude wild assertions and obfuscate valid information countering the lede and name. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has good sources and is well cited. Agree that maybe changing the name or merging would be appropriate but not deletion. There does appear to be some debate the use of the term "Asian grooming gangs". Article does have a section addressing both the terms Muslim grooming gang and Asian grooming gang. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% needs to be merged, the use of "muslim grooming gangs" as a dedicated article is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight given the particular obsession with the topic and ethnicitiy of perpatrators, despite the fact that a lot of perps in these cases are not muslim and are still listed in both the list and map. Problemativ through and throuh. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi TwinkleStarzz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for making your first contribution. The page has been renamed after a WP:RM discussion which changed it from South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic. The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK. The first WP:PROD believed that the article tried to obfuscate or downplay Muslim/Asian grooming gangs hence why new material has been added to provide WP:NPOV. Given the sufficient WP:RS coverage this topic has received, I believe that the page can merit its own article without being merged into a subsection of the main Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom page. There is no implication in this article that perpetrators are motivated by their faith, and quotes are provided from Islamic community leaders to address this. If you believe that any wild assertions or obfuscation of valid information has been made, this can be discussed in the Talk page of the main article, however the article is well-sourced and meets WP:V. I do not believe that the censorship of controversial topics is the way forward. Thanks. --Kioj156 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am puzzled and disappointed by the selective nature in which some editors are choosing to interpret sources, the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe academic study writes: "The controversy related to GLCSE can be resolved through the availability of authoritative data on the identity of the offenders. In order to argue for this we examined over 2,000 press reports on GLCSE prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence. A regression analysis found that both the Muslim and the Pakistani proportions of the local population are powerful variables in explaining the level of GLCSE in an area. The proportion of the local population of Pakistani origin is more powerful in explaining the level of GLCSE than the Muslim proportion, suggesting that, irrespective of their names, most of the defendants are of Pakistani origin." It details a list of local authorities analysed in the study (in page 6) so supporting news articles have been provided to support its analysis. The names of other towns and cities has been provided as the HoL document makes the claim that there are 73 towns and cities affected.
I think that your revision of this edit here as NOR shows that your own idea of censorship is perhaps misguided. "The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK." The context already is clear from each individual article, as well as the CSE in the United Kingdom article that goes into grooming as an issue, having an entire article dedicated to "muslim grooming" rather than just, "grooming" is indeed rather odd. Given your edit history, not that I enjoy red herrings either, your do seem to have a certain penchant for this topic and perhapos a need to step back is needed. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused. I am not @Celjski Grad. You may believe it to be odd, however this specific topic has been addressed by multiple political figures, Islamic community leaders and has even inspired far-right terrorist attacks. Kioj156 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my mistake! In any case, my point remains, based upon your edit history you have a certain penchant for this topic, and ethnicities in general, it is certainly odd to create a page dedicated to "muslim grooming" then include groups that are clearly not "muslim". While simultaneously ignoring the "grooming" section in the CSE article to focus entirely on the ethnicitiy of some of the alleged perpatrators. Padding out the exsiting articles about the cases, or the CSE page itself, would better serve without WP:Undue Weight. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TwinkleStarzz, that reversion came up as part of a patrol of new edits predicted to "very likely have problems" — I haven't edited the article before or since. I'd encourage you to read the first paragraph of WP:NOR to see why text such as "it does therefore did not give an accurate representation" is problematic, but since you've successfully navigated the AfD process with your very first edit this shouldn't be necessary. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting that high-profile cases that took place over a number of years involving a high-number of victims resulted in the phenomenon gaining more attention is not a dog whistle. It provides contextual information as to why the association emerged. - Kioj156
  • (10) - A WP:PRIMARY source used to suggest widespread occurrence of muslim gangs.
(10) is an academic study, and there is nothing to suggest that either of the two authors are primary sources.- Kioj156
  • (9), (21) - Conservative politicians decrying cancel culture for not letting them discuss Muslim grooming gangs
This is included in the lede as it is the most recent commentary from political figures, however you will find that politicians across the political spectrum have made commentary on the ethnicity/religion of perpetrators further down in the article. The statement was by the former Prime Minister whilst he was in office.- Kioj156
  • (15), (16) - research specifically discussing reason why muslim grooming gangs is overpublicized and that as white people make up much of the UK, they make up much of the grooming and child sex exploitation abusers.
The UK is a majority-white country (83%) so it should be of no surprise if most crimes are committed white people, the commentary has been on the over representation of the Asian ethnicity. - Kioj156
  • (19) - I have no clue what Spiked-Online is but searching for islam or muslim on it shows significant islamaphobia. supposedly the wikipedia page for Spiked (magazine) indicates it got sued for Bosnian genocide of muslim denialism
Stuart Waiton, the author of the article, is a criminology and sociology academic and it would be better to address the content of his arguments rather than attacking anything else. If you do not believe his figures are correct, the figures he analyses can be found in page 26 of the Home Office report. - Kioj156
  • (25), (26) - written by Julie Bindel, mostly op-eds but stated as facts. Not sure why we are specifically emphasizing that white girls were abused, especially as I cannot find it in the sourcing. The wikipedia page for Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal indicates that it is a stereotype to suggest that only white girls were abused, when the abused children were diverse.
This is not stated as a fact, the Wikipedia entry reads for sources relating to (25), (26), (27) is: "According to feminist writer Julie Bindel, fears over "being accused of racism" had suppressed coverage and reporting of the growing number of grooming gangs operating across the country. Although "gangs" had been in operation since at least the 1990s, it was only until 2007 when The Sunday Times became the first broadsheet to publish an article on the phenomenon." It is to provide commentary on when the issue was first covered by a broadsheet publication, as well as who the publisher was. - Kioj156
No claim has been made that only "white girls were abused", this Wikipedia article also discusses the abuse of Sikh girls. In the case of Rotherham, the National Crime Agency found that "The vast majority of victims were white British girls aged 11 to 18" and "The NCA inquiry, the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage".- Kioj156
  • (46) - says nothing about muslims grooming gangs, simply states abusers were muslim.
    (47) - report does not indicate ethnicity, or religion. Only that taxi drivers were abusers
    (48), (49), (50), (51) - no specific writing of race or religion, just have muslim-ish names printed out.
    actually sources 43-88 are just read outs of local crime reports. I stopped reading past 51 because of how lazy and useless this is.
    (28), (84), (114) - The Sun is deprecated,
(28) is used to provide a claim by a Sikh charity that abuse began in the 1960s, and (84) is used to provide a name of a settlement. It is not used for analysis.
  • (114) - and we are using an opinion piece as analysis, one that caused significant outrage.
(114) is not used for analysis. It is used to provide a direct quotation of the specific words used by the Labour MP and the subsequent backlash she received. This line of thought also applies to the opinion pieces written by other politicians.
  • This is after 30 minutes of tearing through sourcing. Is there a way to have some neutral version of this article up? Maybe. Is child sex exploitation by desi men a worthy topic to consider? Including by considering criticism of it as racialized dog whistling? Yes. But as is, this article is entirely racist BUNK not even worth keeping a history of, and should be wiped from wikipedia.. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I keep looking through and tearing apart this article? Yeah. Not worth my time. Someone else can throw their lot at it if they want too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative to deletion - Revert to this version [1], and rename article to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:I prefer this option actually. I've reverted to last good version. There is probably a sex abuse issue in the UK desi community, and some research indicates it could be due to lack of tools and social support to Desi women. There is also probably a POV article when we uncritically misuse sourcing to allege every other UK desi guy is a sex abuser. I think we can start to rework sourcing from previous bad version eventually back into this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth incorprating into the CSE page under localised grooming, not having a standalone article that as you've correctly pointed out will be subject to rife POV edits and problems, keeping it all on one page where the subject can be discussed with full context is much more worth it than a singular article that we know will historically be problematic with certain editos - whether now or in the future. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert asap to the last good version[[2]]. WP is not a soapbox for moral panic mongering. Subsequently we can talk about WP:SIGCOV for the moral panic and the best title to present it in case it passes WP:N. –07:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Austronesier (talk)
  • Delete, per Hydrangeans' comments above, with particular regard to the academic source cited therein.[3] Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of moral panics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A clear case for WP:TNT. The problem with this page is that, as Hydrangeans has demonstrated, the encyclopaedic subject of this subject is framed quite differently, and as long as this article persists in this format and with this framing and page history, editors will be fighting a losing battle against a media-fuelled narrative of moral panic. That is to say, the existence of a page about a thing implies that the thing is itself a subject. It isn't. The subject is moral panic, racism, islamophobia and the persistence of media led narratives. This should probably be mentioned in appropriate articles (several of them, so no redirect makes sense - and a redirect is harmful). Although it should be mentioned in appropriate places, there is no case for an article itself, which would always look like a war zone. TNT is not enough. Needs C4. Maybe a nuke. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I was going to vote keep, until I saw what a POV mess this is. It needs so much work it might be better to scrap it and start from scratch. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has been derailed from the original topic by POV edits. Or at the very least revert to the last good version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1231313707 and additionaly revert the article name to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" or similar memphisto 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem then is that because this coverage came from "generally reliable" newspapers like The Times, there will inevitably be people who will argue that we have to present this "Muslim grooming gang" coverage as a mainstream perspective that should be presented as equally legitimate to the very critical academic coverage. This topic in my opinion is already briefly but adequately covered at Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe it's worth noting that two currently-cited academic articles use the phrase "Muslim grooming gangs" in their titles. Based on that alone, I'd argue that the topic is notable. However, as others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to move the page to something like 'Muslim grooming gangs moral panic in the UK' to indicate this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and well said, it was a frustrating topic to research with all the racist nonsense getting in the way. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significa liberdade: "this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering". Indeed. This is what I'd hoped would be addressed with the proposed title of "Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" - to say that there is a notable topic here, but it is the discourse itself, not a specific group of people. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a phenomenon that needs an article. There is vast evidence of it and it is a major thing in the UK. It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith (nobody is saying, incidentally, that they were motivated by that faith). Denial of this is sticking one's head in the sand. However, as I said at the RM, renaming it to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as it stood was racist dogwhistling, and many of the sources cited (and originally misused) all either talk about how the media does ridiculous amounts of attention on the ethnicities especially to suggest brown male on white girl violence, that statistics suggest that vast majority of abusers in UK are still white and sources otherwise were often politically motivated, or that a lack of resources for brown desi girls caused issues with sexual assault.
    I propose renaming it to Grooming gangs moral panic in the United Kingdom Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Do you have a source for that? That looks like a media narrative. Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford all fit that profile, but not the Camborne gang, nor the Glasgow one, nor whatever the heck you call this one [4], and countless more. Stats do not bear out the media narrative. There is no subject here, except the subject of media induced moral panic based on after the fact correlation of selected cases, and studied ignorance of the remainder. By having a page we lend credence to the false narrative. An encyclopaedic article needs to focus on the failings that got us here, and not perpetrate those same failings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like a media narrative. So, now Wikipedia rejects media sources like the BBC which have always been held to be reliable? That's a new one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A previous piece of research from 2015 found that of 1,231 perpetrators of "group and gang-based child sexual exploitation", 42% were white, 14% were defined as Asian or Asian British and 17% black. BBC: [5]

    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article." this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Incorporating it into the existing CSE article on Grooming is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, and others here that have commented. The exisiting individual articles on each case goes into more than enough detail and wouldn't serve as a hub for malicious POV edits like the original did. Not to mention that no one has created any articles on the various "white" grooming gang cases, only a certain type make the wiki - that itself is perhaps a problem. In any case, renaming it to a moral panic - which it is, is a secondary option to incorporating it. Having a standalone article would need to be consistently monitored to stop those POV racist edits and is perhaps more work than worth. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. As I said, it can be renamed to simple Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, or didn't you bother reading what I actually wrote before jumping to incorrect conclusions? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you say "It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" when the article actually says that is false [6] [7]. When someone commenting on an article where the information is right in front of them actually states the opposite, it is unsurprising that the intellectually challenged who took part in the recent riots believe it as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. " That's not what I did. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Yup, that's exactly what you did! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, saying you're using language that racists use, doesn't mean that you are a racist. Nor did I ever accuse you of being a racist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read things more carefully! Try not to accuse *me* of anything in the meantime as you just did! TwinkleStarzz (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, just responding to User:Sirfurboy's point above: the question was Do you have a source for that?, and the answer is yes: whether or not Necrothesp does, I do. It's in the academic source I linked above. To quote it exactly:

...Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation (CSE) identified to date, relative to the general population.

As always, the context is important. The title of that paper is Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, which rather gives away its central thesis; it doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position. I invite you to read it in full here.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) I've reflected on this again and I really like Bluethricecreamman's wording, "moral panic". That's a pithy and laser accurate term for what we're dealing with here.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its what the article and title originally was before all the pov edits and the RM move. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't; it was "South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic". The panic was there, but the moral panic is, as far as I can see, all yours.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Actually, that isn't a source for what Sirfurboy was asking. Necrothesp didn't say Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, he said It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith, which is false. And I'm going to say it again - that's two obviously intelligent people who are befuddled by this article, so it's no surprise it's become a racist trope for the hard of thinking, is it? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's got an academic source too, though. Let me quote it:

we examined over 2,000 press reports on [Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders] prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence.

Source is here. The issue is with the extreme specific-ness of the offence: "Group localized CSE offenders".—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position is indeed correct. The source I requested was for the statement: It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. That is wrong, and the fact that an editor and admin with the experience and intelligence of Necrothesp can make such a statement demonstrates the pernicious nature of media narratives, and the danger of a page that leans into them. From the conclusions of that paper:

The image of the Asian groomer has proved a seductive and enduring one, yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

And lest I be accused of cutting that of where it suits me, I note that it does go on to say that Asians are the second-largest racial group among suspects of various forms of CSE in two major national studies, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population. (my emphasis). That "various forms" is a gotcha. If we narrow the parameters then yes, the group is proportionally over-represented, but that is not at all the same thing as the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this: if you narrow the parameters in an extremely specific way, you find that a certain kind of CSE in the UK is mainly perpetrated by South Asian Muslims. But if you use other parameters that isn't true.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population for that very narrow form (and law of small numbers now applies). If you narrow the parameters any further, you are consciously selecting for the result you wish to find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a much better source than the unpublished preprint you quoted from above:

A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Most of the same studies show that the majority of offenders are White. [8]

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic and seemingly ongoing/current cultural situation in the UK. As Kioj156, Vulpes and others state, it is well sourced, cited and beyond contention. The topic merits it's own page, it does seem a tad like censorship of a controversial topic, not what an encyclopaedia should be aiming for.Halbared (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are poor, just because it is "sourced" does not mean it is actual quality. Nor is it particularly historic given grooming for sexual purposes of children, even as groups, has existed for centuries. I would personally also contest "current/ongoing" given the majority of articles are 2014/2015. Not to mention the statistics quoted being plainly false in the original article and the other egregious issues others have pointed out earlier on this page. Namely Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite. While the topic itself may warrant a page - the "moral panic" being the best example = the original article was wholly unfit to be on the wiki. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove articles. The topic exists and is clearly notable. I would, however, support moving it to "Grooming Gangs in the United Kingdom", since that would provide the same content and presumably ruffle people's jimmies less. Jtrainor (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single argument has been IDONTLIKEIT, and citing that is ad hominem. The argument is that it is not a thing.

yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "UK grooming gangs moral panic" or something similar. Naming the country it took place in is neutral, unlike alleging that it was unique to one particular religion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is certainly notable given the abundance of reliable sources covering it (see comments by Significa liberdade, Vulpes). I don't think the sources support renaming it to moral panic, this is what the Independent says “Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Alaexis¿question? 08:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. This has already been addressed within this very page - it is a meaningless statement without context. I believe you to be misrepresenting Significa's comments also, or at least misunderstanding them. Academic sources are reliable, but the original article was incredinly poorly sourced. The "moral panic" angle is entirely justified in my opinion. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that it is "a meaningless statement without context" does not logically follow from what you quoted. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, as other comments point out, without context it is an entirely meaningless statement where the conclusion can be obtained by obfuscating and careful manipulation of statistics and data. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide reliable sources stating that any statistics or data have been "obfuscated or carefully manipulated"? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can read this very page for how that has occurred further up. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Which seems to me to be a delete argument. If we have a page on the thing, we say the thing exists. Unless we have a page on the thing and say in the first sentence it doesn't exist. The page on this subject goes beyond the evidence, simply by existing as framed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not go by whether we are sure or unsure about one thing or another, nor is its policy that we need to claim that "something doesn't exist" at the beginning of an article if we're unsure about it. It goes by what reliable third party sources and others such as academic sources say, of which there are plenty on this topic, making it notable. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable secondary sources say this is a media constructed narrative, and that the narrative of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. What secondary sources are you reading? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not have articles that identify a horrific crime with a religious faith, just as we'd never have an article titled "Jewish killers in Gaza". Such an article would be blatantly anti-semitic, just as the article about alleged "Muslim" child abuse is blatantly Islamophobic. NightHeron (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has various articles doing just that (such as the articles on "Islam and domestic violence" or "Christian terrorism.") There is also no policy Wikipedia is based on in line with what you said. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only as per the various other arguments made already (well-sourced, highly publicized in reliable sources) but also because it's hard to see good arguments being brought forth for deletion so far, rather anti-policy arguments using words like "offensive" (ignoring that WP's policy explicitly states that articles are allowed to be "offensive") and studies being brought up and misread that further provide reason to keep the article. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced" is doing an awful lot of lifting in a lot of these replies, despite already being pointed out by Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite that it is in fact far from "well sourced." No one has argued that it should be removed for being "offensive" either. Blatant red herring. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false and strangely accusatory. It is important to always assume other editors are acting in good faith, unless an editor clearly shows behaviour that suggests otherwise. Regarding your points, one editors' entire argument has been "This is offensive and almost worth a speedy as an attack page." The arguments about the sources don't check out, since there is a large amount of reliable sources being used. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It blatantly isn't false, and your reply is unfortunately transparently projecting. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The version nominated for deletion was awful but the version we have now is OK. We should have an article about this because it covers a prominent and perennial allegation made by racists, which has received significant coverage and which people will want to look it up here to find out what the deal really is. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as it was before it was very recently emasculated was well written and well sourced. And as the phenomenon is well known in Britain, and appears to be ongoing, it’s obviously notable. The phenomenon is also horrific, the implications stark, but none of that should be given any consideration as to whether an article about it should be allowed to exist. Minimising and belittling the subject, however, by describing it as a moral panic and eliminating any content which describes the phenomenon that existed and probably continues to, is very sad. As it says in the version which existed before it’s emasculation, "In 2023, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed that victims of such gangs have been ignored because of "political correctness" and cultural sensitivity." The current article appears to reflect that. There is no point in having something which does its utmost to minimise and belittle something which is so horrific and, further, looking at the recent editing, it is clear that there is no chance of getting back to the well written, well sourced and deserving article that there was. I'd like to congratulate Kloj156 for his valiant efforts in that regard, and commiserate with him for the eventual result. Boscaswell talk 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as withdrawn‎. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle judicatory

[edit]
Middle judicatory (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)

Religious terminology. This is certainly a thing that exists, as Google Books results show. But the article is essentially unsourced and marked as such since 2021. The one source is an apparently WP:SPS "research report" that is barely comprehensible and does not appear to support the article's contents. In particular, there is no source confirming that the various religious structures listed in the article are "middle judicatories". Unless properly sourced, this article has no place in an encyclopedia, per WP:V (let alone WP:N). Sandstein 22:03, 26 August 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.

Tallaal Adrey

[edit]
Tallaal Adrey (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 don't think the person meets the notability policy; only news about his trial. Nothing else.-- فيصل (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Al-Mazeedi

[edit]
Hani Al-Mazeedi (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 don't see that the person meets the notability criteria; I couldn't find reliable sources that talk about him.-- فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITTA Foundation

[edit]
CITTA Foundation (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 article is very promotional and written in a very spammy way. I have already removed a copyright violation but I cannot find any sustained coverage of the organisation that would help it pass WP:NCORP, save some press releases. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it is not promotion or advertising because it has a criticism of a failed project by the foundation. Starlighsky (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add that the article was based on the GYAAN Center architecture. The reasoning was that writing about the foundation allows for the center to be written about: (External link) The Gyaan Center, a Sustainable Architectural Marvel in the Heart of India’s Golden City - Architect and Interiors India Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Narayan

[edit]
Vishnu Narayan (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)

Simply fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Article does not speak for itself and sources from here and WP:BEFORE do not imply notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smith (soccer, born 1999)

[edit]
Michael Smith (soccer, born 1999) (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)

Came up during the Wikiproject talk page discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wood (soccer), and Michael Smith looks equally far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements for the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Endorsements for the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership 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)

On the face of it someone put in a fair bit of work into this, but as about half of the entries are unsourced, with very old citation needed templates, we are left with a page that is not very accurate on a subject that is not very notable, and not very likely to ever get finished. The leadership election of the Canadian liberal party in 2006 is almost certainly notable, but a list of who endorsed whom is not. What it is, is original research. If someone has put together this list and it is referred to in a secondary source, then it is notable but could be mentioned on a page about the election. If this collection does not exist anywhere, then it is not notable and the curation here is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt Keep, it's fairly easy to verify most of the citation needed claims- just my computer isn't able to handle editing the article. Searching the name of the person and then the candidate often gives results. Using Allan Armsworthy as a example, I found this article from The Casket which confirmed the endorsement. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolving the sourcing for the endorsements does not explain why a list of who endorsed whom in that election is independently notable for a page. Is this established as a collection anywhere, per WP:LISTN? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an example of the kind of thing that seemed like a good idea in 2006 when the leadership convention was current news, but is not important historical information that would pass the enduring significance test now that we're almost 20 years removed from the event. Basically, it's a WP:NOTNEWS issue: even if some of the referencing can be improved with better sources, what's lacking is a reason why readers would actually still be looking for this information at all anymore. And note that this sort of thing has not been maintained for any of the other leadership conventions that Canadian political parties have held since 2006, either, so it's not part of any comprehensive set. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastex Advocate

[edit]
Eastex Advocate (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 should be treated under WP:NCORP. Although news media is media, it still needs to be shown to be notable. No secondary sources on the page (news announcements about ownership are primary) and I don't see secondary sourcing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH in searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan (Nepalese actor)

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Nutan (Nepalese actor) (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)

Deleted in January as Nutan (actor). Still doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who accepted this article, initially I thought he might meet the general notability guideline, but now looking back, yeah, he doesn't. Delete. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chelari Airport

[edit]
Chelari Airport (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 looks to be a hoax. All sources are based on a facebook post by an "assistant professor of journalism"[9] and are accompanied by the same two images, a very grainy (newspaper?) photo of what looks like anything but an airstrip, and a photo of a plane in the "The Hindu" livery. It is not only not the place that crashed (which was a DC47, a two motor plane, not a four motor airplane), but it is a photoshopped version of this image, completely unrelated to the airport or newspaper. Fram (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a primary source, but there's this written answer in parliament from the end of 1965: Will the Minister of Civil Aviation be pleased to state: (a) whether any offer has been received from the Birlas agreeing to place the Chelari Aerodrome near Calicut for providing regular Dakota service; [...] Yes, Sir. This airstrip in its present condition is not suitable for the scheduled operations of I.A.C. However, this offer has been kept in view while surveying for suitable sites for an airport for Calicut. So it certainly existed. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think. The article linked explains it. It was never an airport; it was a small airstrip. The Facebook post with obviously AI-generated images of what the airstrip "looked like" seems to have caused confusion. This source also confirms the airstrip did exist and is not, in fact, a hoax (apparently contrary to popular belief). There's also this source. It's mentioned here too. So notability of the airstrip appears to have been established, but the article needs to be reworked/renamed based on the sources available and mention the misinformation (as that appears to be the basis for a lot of coverage) around its existence. Someone should take a more in-depth look beyond Google Translate to make sure this is actually the case. C F A 💬 19:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexicana de Aviación destinations

[edit]
List of Mexicana de Aviación 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, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, during the 89 year history of this airline, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press and local news (failing WP:AUD). Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. If this were a notable topic, I would expect to see a history of the airline covering its destinations - but no such coverage is present nor do I see it in a quick search. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Business Technologies

[edit]
Inbox Business Technologies (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)

Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate advertisements. This is related to Ghias Khan paid-for-spam. IPO of this company didn't happen so WP:LISTED is not applicable. Other than that there are routine press releases or brief coverage in WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. DeploreJames (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Crosji, the article in Dawn mentions the 2nd article and paraphrases it without adding anything extra about the company, so as a source in its own right (for the purposes of establishing notability) it can be ignored. Looking then at the article in Coda, it says that the topic company has partnered with a Canadian company to provide a solution to monitor web and call traffic. The article only says that the topic company were licensed to install the Canadian company's technology. It attributes the technology enabling "web monitoring" to the Canadian technology, not that of the topic company. But of more relevance to here, there is insufficient in-depth information provided about the *company* in this article, and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. As to this in The Express Tribune, it is a regurgitated announcement of the company receiving an industry award, the same story carried on the same day in several other publications such as here and here and here. It is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghias Khan

[edit]
Ghias Khan (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)

CEO doing his job, nothing significant done by him in his corporate career. References are basically primary references (i.e. interview) or mentions in reliable references. Pakistan & Gulf Economist article is the best reference about him but an archived version reveals that it is an interview as well ([13]). Bloomberg.com database entries are not useful for notability purposes. Clearly no way near meeting WP:GNG. DeploreJames (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, there are numerous articles on corporate leaders from all over who have held key positions and become part of public discourse, like Ghias Khan from Pakistan. He has interacted with public figures, made significant contributions to the industry, and recently moved on after many years. To test notability you just needed to read/watch news the lkast few years. It's legitimate to have such an article, and the fact that it has garnered at least 50K views indicates a certain level of public interest, therefore it should not be deleted but updated. Crosji (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crosji, As the creator of this BLP, I’d love to see it rescued. However, I, lack the time or perhaps the interest, to dig into sources and defend this BLP, so I voted for a redirect. But anyway please remember to avoid WP:ATA (in this case WP:POPULARPAGE) when casting votes in AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delhi Premier League T20

[edit]
2024 Delhi Premier League T20 (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)

Another example of a local Indian cricket tournament that doesn't need separate season articles. The fact that the teams are mostly non notable players (with 1-2 exceptions per team) makes it no surprise to me that this season article doesn't pass WP:GNG independently of general coverage about tournament creation which is relevant mainly to the parent article Delhi Premier League T20. We need to stop creating season articles for every local one city or state T20 tournaments with non notable players. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davidrun99 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnoteworthy local city league. The league is not notable (even majority of the players) or noteworthy enough nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would highlight that the population of Delhi, over 28 million people, is more than many countries so to refer to this as a 'Local League' per some contributors above is slightly disingenuous. As the biggest sport in a sizable catchment area with considerable media interest it is clear that this competition, as well as the other state level T20 leagues in India, fulfils Wikipedia's Notability criteria. Bobby2302 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.178 (talk) — 185.13.50.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note to Admin: IP 185.13.50.178 signed itself as BobbyB. Maybe same users? BobbyB has only one edit to its account and that was in 2006.[reply]
  • This IP edit claiming to be another user also looks like an attempt to imitate me (using 2302 and the exact colours of my signature). As well as making no actual claim on why separate season articles should exist (as they seem to be talking about the main tournament articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I was trying to work out how do do a signiture. My comment still stands that the artical should be kept per policy. 185.13.50.219 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which policy should it be kept under? Because there is no evidence this passes WP:GNG, which is the main way of determining keeping or deleting of articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Guidelines / Standards for Establishing Wikipedia Notability for State Cricket Leagues:

In my opinion, establishing clear guidelines for creating Wikipedia articles related to state cricket leagues is essential to ensure they meet the notability criteria and have a lasting presence on the platform. To pass the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG and retain annual league and team articles, I propose the following criteria:

Completion of Multiple Seasons: State leagues, such as the Tamil Nadu Premier League, should successfully complete at least one to three annual league series. This demonstrates consistency, relevance, and the league’s potential for long-term significance in the cricketing landscape.

Involvement of National Players: The state league should feature at least 10 players who have competed in prestigious events such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), national cricket tournaments, or international matches. The presence of such players not only elevates the league's standard but also increases its notability and media coverage.

Minimum Team Requirement and Broadcast Standards: To align with national and international guidelines, the state cricket league should consist of a minimum of six teams. Additionally, the league should be broadcast live on major sports channels like Star Sports, ESPN, or equivalent platforms. This ensures widespread visibility and demonstrates the league’s significance beyond the local level.

By adhering to these guidelines, we can ensure that Wikipedia articles about state cricket leagues are both notable and valuable resources for readers, reflecting the importance of these leagues in the broader context of cricket. Davidrun99 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just writing the rules/entry criteria for a tournament doesn't mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is the main criteria for whether an article is kept or not (not any of the rules you're making up on this and similar AFDs). Where is the evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the evidences of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season:
  1. Delhi Premier League 2024: Full schedule, teams, live streaming details
  2. DDCA announces inaugural Delhi Premier League
  3. Delhi Premier League announces JioCinema as official streaming partner, Sports18 as broadcast partner.
  4. GMR Group sponsors inaugural Delhi Premier League T20, reinforces commitment to Indian Cricket.
  5. DDCA appoints Virender Sehwag as brand ambassador of inaugural season of Delhi Premier League.
Vikas265 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[14] is WP:ROUTINE coverage about event schedule. [15] is behind a paywall so I cannot analyse, but looks from the first paragraph to be general information not WP:SIGCOV. [16] and [17] are regurgitated press releases from sponsors. [18] is not a reliable source (as per Wikipedia:REPUBLICTV). I'm not saying the parent article should be deleted, just that season articles are not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season:
1.Delhi Premier League T20, Match 16 Review: Keshav Dabas' fifty powers Central Delhi Kings to five-wicket win over East Delhi Riders.
2. Delhi Premier League T20 2024, Match 15 Review: Arya's historic ton leads South Delhi Supertstarz to dominant win over Purani Dilli 6. Vikas265 (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, the above are WP:ROUTINE, the sort of coverage matches in my local cricket league in the South of England gets. AA (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeye Penhan

[edit]
Sayeye Penhan (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:NFILM in short. No critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about an Iranian film that was recorded in Iran according to the sources available in the article. If the article is lacking in content, it is likely that the user who created it did not have sufficient information and was unable to provide further edits. As you may have noticed, a 'stub' template has been added at the end of the article, indicating that editors are encouraged to help expand the article by adding more information. According to this procedure, the article needs more time to be completed. However, you have placed a deletion template on this article, which goes against the rules of English Wikipedia." 5.233.174.226 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have no decent sourcing to start with, adding a stub template doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No mentions in RS other than what's given; not seeing notability for this short film. I don't find any sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A statement is made that is not logical. You say there are no sources, so what are the sources listed in the references section for? This has been officially announced as a certain type of film and has been screened as a cinematic movie in Iran and registered on IMDb. You shouldn't compare this article, which pertains to Iran, with an article related to the United States, because it was created by an editor who has limited knowledge about Iranian cinema, and this will be corrected over time with the help of other editors. Unfortunately, you made a hasty decision to delete this article, which is not logical and violates Wikipedia's rules. This article is still new and was created just a month ago, and a stub template has been added to allow editors to contribute, with credible sources also cited. 5.233.174.226 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article, with its completed information, should remain on English Wikipedia and not be deleted, so that it can be improved and matured by editors.
    Thank you. 5.233.230.102 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to know that a topic is notable enough to merit an article first, instead of creating an article and waiting to see if editors find enough sources. However, the other option is always to set up a draft, which can be improved and moved back into the main article space once it's ready. hinnk (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to stay: This article is about an Iranian film and is still in the early stages. It should be allowed to be edited. If the article has any issues, please help by editing and improving it rather than deleting the article altogether. With suggested edits from editors, this article can be strengthened, but deleting it would not be productive. This article should remain; otherwise, we would be violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.HistoryBuff98 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • to stay: The article has been updated with new sources that establish its notability and confirm the significance of the film according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The references are now comprehensive. This article should remain on English Wikipedia so that we, the editors, can continue to expand and improve it.HistoryBuff98 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Science and Technology, Bangladesh

[edit]
Institute of Science and Technology, Bangladesh (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 educational institution. No independent, reliable sources could be found in English or Bengali that contain significant coverage of it, so there should not be a stand alone article on the topic. I had previously redirected it to List of institutes in Bangladesh, but was reverted by the author, an alumnus. Worldbruce (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "List of institutes in Bangladesh" Fails WP:GNG and there is clearly a WP:COI issue around the article. Is Bangladesh Institute of Science and Technology a separate institute, as it looks very much alike. The Banner talk 09:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Sitters International

[edit]
Pet Sitters International (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 evidence PSI meets N:ORG. A membership organization & trade association whose coverage is mostly non independent and definitely not in depth. Star Mississippi 02:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Costello, Jane (1999-09-02). "With Two Pet-Sitting Groups, Naturally Things Turn Catty". The Wall Street Journal. p. B1. ProQuest 398712141.

      The article notes: "After a series of catfights, Ms. Moran left NAPPS in 1993 and set up a rival organization, Pet Sitters International. The sponsor of Take Your Dog to Work Day, PSI now has 2,900 members, who pay $80 in annual dues. Through a correspondence school, PSI members can also apply to become an "Accredited Pet Sitting Technician" for $299. With further training, and another $179, there's the title "Advanced Pet Sitting Technician." For another $50, there's "Master Pet Sitting Professional." At PSI's conference in New Orleans next week, topics will include the "untapped market" for midday dog-walking and ways to avoid professional burnout. While PSI has accumulated the lion's share of pet sitters, NAPPS has recruited 1,200 members ..."

    2. Sturiale, Jeanne (2004-03-19). "King Woman Is a Leader in the Field of Pet-Sitting - Members Accredited to Visit Pets in Homes". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.

      The article notes: "About 10 years ago, Patti Moran founded Pet Sitters International Inc. to encourage professionalism in the emerging field of in-home pet care. Since then, Pet Sitters International, a for-profit association in King, has grown to more than 6,000 members in nine countries, with members ranging from one-person shops to companies with 125 pet sitters on staff. ... After Moran sold her pet-sitting business in 1993, friends encouraged her to start an association. A year later, she formed Pet Sitters International. ... Moran wouldn't reveal profits, but, with annual member dues of $99, Pet Sitters International's sales exceed $500,000 a year."

    3. Daniel, Fran (2014-04-06). "A furry friend's safe haven. Globe pet-sitting association began in Triad" (pages 1 and 2). Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Patti Moran's love for dogs. cats and other pets morphed from a petting-sitting business into an international pet-sitting association based in King. Founded in 1994, Pet Sitters International is an educational organization for professional pet sitters. The association has 7,000 members, of which 331 are based in 30 countries outside the United States, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and Brazil. For the past 20 years, the association has focused on helping people start their own professional pet-sitting services by offering access to pet-sitter specific business and educational resources, as well as educating pet owners about the importance of choosing "quality pet-care providers.""

    4. Caldwell, Neill (2019-11-06). "King-based worldwide organization celebrates 25 years". The Stokes News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.

      The article notes: "Pet Sitters International celebrated that 25th anniversary this past weekend during its annual World Educational Conference. Patti Moran is the founder and is considered a pioneer — not just for Pet Sitters International but for an entire industry that didn’t really exist until she envisioned it. The organization was started in Winston-Salem, but the Morans moved to King 22 years ago. ... In 1994, Moran founded Pet Sitters International (PSI). ... PSI began publishing the first magazine for professional pet sitters, now called Pet Sitter’s World. Moran and PSI also established Professional Pet Sitters Week, now a recognized, annual observance around the globe. The organization also promotes pet adoption, has an awards program, an online store and offers its members certifications and bonding. It is the world’s largest educational association for professional pet sitters and dog walkers."

    5. Duea, Angela Williams (2008). How To Open & Operate a Financially Successful Pet Sitting Business. Ocala, Florida: Atlantic Publishing. pp. 34, 223–224. ISBN 978-1-60138-229-0. Retrieved 2024-08-12 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 34: "Pet Sitters International (PSI) offers pet sitters an accreditation program to sharpen their professional skills. An in-depth educational program teaches pet sitters about pet care, health and nutrition, business management, office procedures, and additional services. The top pet sitting professionals in the industry have worked together to develop this coursework. While you can gain this knowledge in other places, such as by reading this book, PSI offers accreditation for students completing this coursework. Your clients will know that by hiring an accredited sitter, they are assured of hiring a professional with in-depth knowledge and skills in caring for pets and a good knowledge of modern pet-care practices. To become accredited, the pet sitter has to learn and exhibit a working knowledge of taking care of many types of animals and running an efficient business."

      The book notes on pages 223–224: "Pet Sitters International is dedicated to educating professional pet sitters and promoting, supporting, and recognizing excellence in pet sitting. This professional association offers pet sitters an accreditation program to sharpen their professional skills. An in-depth educational program teaches business management, office procedures, and additional services. The top pet-sitting professionals in the industry have worked together to develop this coursework."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pet Sitters International to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the sources @Cunard, 5 was new to me but I'm not sure 1-4 are suitably independent as the blurbs are lifted from versions of their site which makes me think they're re-prints of press releases and other communications from Moran. Maybe the depth will end up being there given their history but I"ve not yet found it. Will keep looking too. Star Mississippi 12:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me how these sources are lifted from versions of their website or are reprints of press releases. Reliable sources have covered the company's history, products, and initiatives like Take Your Dog to Work Day. This is the coverage I'd expect notable companies to receive. Some of this information is also covered on the company's website but I don't see any close paraphrasing or indication that the sources solely relied on what the company said. I think there's enough independent coverage from national publications like The Wall Street Journal and Atlantic Publishing to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sourcing presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on the first two sources surfaced by @Cunard above. The Winston Salem Journal article is independent and significant coverage, and the WSJ article is not particularly long but is in-depth and independent. Both meet SIGCOV. I can't access #3 but it looks like it could go either way. 4 and 5 seem quite PR/publicity driven (not saying #5 is not independent, but the information seems regurgitated). Oblivy (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Cunard has provided links to sources above but that these fail the criteria as follows:
  • The WSJ article contains approx 7 sentences containing information about the company which mostly simple recites the fees, courses and accreditation, all repeated from the website. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The rest of the article is about the founder falling out with a rival organisation and an upcoming conference.
  • This first article in the W-S Journal is a puff profile, based entirely on an interview with the founder, Moran. There is no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Similarly the second W-S Journal article is also based entirely on an interview with the founder and has no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
  • This from Stoke News is based on an announcement of 25 years in business and an interview with the founder. It repeats the same information as in the other articles, about how she was let go from a previous job and set up the company and wrote a book. It regurgitates the same messaging as in the other article and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • The book "How To Open & Operate a Financially Successful Pet Sitting Business" copies the bullet points listed on pages 34, 35 and 36 from the company as acknowledged by the copyright notice. It is also included in the appendix which lists lots of organisations but the open sentence describing the company is copied in parts from the website and the rest simply regurgitates the same descriptions we've seen in the other articles. There is no "Independent Content" or any content which cannot be found on archived copies of the website, fails ORGIND
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I cannot see 212 words in the WSJ journal that are about the organization tbh. Also, it isn't only quotation or interviews or other types of directly quoted wording which falls foul of ORGIND, but also information which clearly originates from the organization or their officers. It is a fact that the WSJ spoke with or interviewed the founder for the article as they include a direct quote about her quitting NAPPS saying "It was hard to get anything done". That the article might paraphrase or otherwise not directly quote exactly what was said does not make the *content* independent - clearly there is no dispute that the publisher (WSJ) and PSI are corporately independent. The information about the accreditation and the number of members is on the website - or more likely with information provided during the interview. Also remember, that once you discard the information that fails ORGIND, the remaining content must be SIGCOV significant and CORPDEPTH in-depth - none of the content is either significant or in-depth about the organization. HighKing++ 14:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is more off-base to blindly assume that WSJ "coverage" automatically contains "Independent Content". Can you point to those parts of each article which you consider as "Independent Content" that meets ORGIND? Cunard's point is based on the assumption that anything that isn't contained in quotes must therefore be independent content, but "dependent coverage" includes content which is "substantially based" on PR, announcements, quotes, interviews, etc. Rewording the information does not make the content independent. HighKing++ 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know how to respond to this. The WSJ is on the list of perennial sources at RSN, and there's no question about the subject of this article being somehow tied to an area where WSJ would have a conflict, such as News Corp. The WSJ is, along with the Financial Times and the New York Times, one of the most consistently reliable newspapers in the English-speaking world, and it has real reporting standards that go beyond repackaging press releases. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jharkhand Andolankari Sangharsh Morcha

[edit]
Jharkhand Andolankari Sangharsh Morcha (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 sources are not reliable and do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject. It fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. GrabUp - Talk 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JOJ WAU

[edit]
JOJ WAU (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)

Probably not notable. I could only find this: [19], [20], [21]. This probably does not constitute significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nu Breed Music Group

[edit]
The Nu Breed Music 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)

Fails WP:CORP with no WP:RS. I can't find anything that even mentions this specific company and not the rap group (NuBreed). The official website doesn't even work. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 700-750 light-years

[edit]
List of star systems within 700-750 light-years (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)

At the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 500-550 light-years, some argued that up to 650 ly would be a good arbitrary limit, others thought 100 ly would be better and argued for deletion. Instead of waiting for the outcome of that discussion, we now have a new list which goes even beyond this. So, the nomination and delete !vote arguments of that other discussion apply here as well, but even more so. Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are:

List of star systems within 650-700 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of star systems within 750-800 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of star systems within 800-850 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of star systems within 500-1000 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My argument is that 1000-6000 or 6000-10,000 ly should be temporary maximum limit for now as the article before lack any Wolf-Rayet star or magnetar or pulsar and many many more interesting Star. Then why need to remove these things as it is rare and less and it is much much easy to have a list of stars to search and use than searching separate articles and if you think this is hard then think of people who had made Catalog of each star, I am not giving anyone pressure to do add or edit this, As edit and adding is a voluntary work not a toxic editing work. I also think that as time passes more new information will be added and as such no need of deliting things, But otherwise expanding this to at least 6000 ly. "Do not have fear of Hard work because of it is hard,but be happy as the work is hard and get the Plesure/essence of the work". So, My humble request is to have want to add not want to delete and do not delete the article. Abdullah1099 26 August 2024, 05:00 UTC

[...]the article before lack any Wolf-Rayet star or magnetar or pulsar and many many more interesting Star. A list of the nearest Wolf-Rayet stars or pulsars could be useful. Listing all stars by distance out to hundreds of light-years isn't. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no connection between these stars other than their distance from the Sun. Do we really need to know what stars lie between these distance ranges? It's a rather pointless list that is unlikely to see much use and will never be complete. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, We need this kind of list and this is our work to do. My last request is to not become inhuman. Note:I already told that i am not adding red drawfs after 100 ly until and unless it is a special one. So, almost 60% of stars has gone then why the problem is coming at the first place. I had already taken the command to add and edited everything, So, No need to be in stress. If expanding above 500 or 1000 ly is pointless then making this type of list is also pointless at the first place even before 20-10 ly is also pointless. Abdullah1099 26 August 2024, 05:00 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of this segregated approach for neighborhood stars, so I don't disagree that a broad list of stars 10–20 ly distant is not all that useful either. But that consensus was reached when it was decided to eliminate comparable NavBox templates, so we live with it. The main issue here is where do you draw the line? These could just keep on expanding ad infinitum, and to what purpose? Those would be more poorly viewed articles that editors need to maintain every time there is new parallax data, and they become a waste of effort at some point. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here. Praemonitus (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My request is to not delete this type of article till 1000 ly and give me chance to make this list till 1000 ly.Abdullah1099 02:70 , 27 August 2024 (UTC). reply

I have changed because as separate articles and no. of stars are not enough, Please Fram, 21.Andromedae and other guys show some mercy and do not delete the article, I would not extend this list above 1000 ly. This is my humble request to you, Please show some mercy on me, as finding and making this kind of list is a tedious task taking almost 12 hours. Please do not delete the list of star systems within 500-1000 light-years, while you can delete other article like stars in 500-550,550-600,...,etc., as i already removed all stars name from that previously. please you all guys Show some mercy to me. It is fact that long list for 1000 ly or more can be useless but please do mercy on this one. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judoon

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Judoon (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 Judoon seem to lack significant coverage discussing the species as a whole. I found very little searching in Books and Scholar, with Books only turning up spin-off material from the series and Scholar only pulling trivial mentions or mentions of the episode "Fugitive of the Judoon," which only discuss the episode and not the species. News sources have a few hits, but they're mostly ROUTINE coverage (A character is returning, here's a few guides so you know who they are) and even then there's very few of them and the bulk of them are just plot summary with no significant reception of analysis of their role. I don't believe there's enough here for the Judoon to act as a standalone article. A viable AtD is a redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, where most of the relevant information regarding the Judoon is already present. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a well-written nomination encompassing both BEFORE and ATDs. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Kukanov

[edit]
Nikita Kukanov (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 a basic stats stub and the Ukrainian Wikipedia article only has links to database sources. My own searches yielded UA Football, Pravda and Kramatorsk Post, none of which are even close to demonstrating WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a local publication from Volgodonsk, Russia Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaho Osawa

[edit]
Kaho Osawa (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:BLP and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign congressional endorsements

[edit]
List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign congressional endorsements (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 article is a copy of a few sections from List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements, except that it already deviates from that article in content and has several referencing errors. There's no reason to have two copies of this information. Note that there's no discussion of a split of the primary article, therefore no concensus for such an action. mikeblas (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King and Maxwell (book series)

[edit]
King and Maxwell (book series) (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)

Series fails WP:GNG, no reason for this to be a separate article from the individual books. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the consensus at NBOOKs earlier this year fiction book series inherent the notability from the books if the books themselves are notable and in fact it is often a preferred default to cover the books at a series level vs individual book level. In either case, valid navigational list. It's generally better to cover novels as a series first and then split when that gets long, not the reverse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) after a similar AfD: there was generally unanimous consensus for inherited series notability for fiction works (but no consensus on non-fiction, to which this does not apply). PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Mukherjee

[edit]
Sourav Mukherjee (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 independent, reliable secondary sources found. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources includes primary, blogs such as Medium and unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the Wikipedia page submission. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and sourcing. However, the person is very popular in Indian animation studies scene, as you will see his books has been published by the Central Government of India, and he had also received several grants for research in this field. Further more independent and reliable secondary sources will be added to support the content and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards. Once again, your input is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to improving the page with more robust references.
Best regards. Kolkata.cult (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolkata.cult: Please share reliable independent sources here, as I am unable to find any, which is the reason behind the nomination. Books published by the Central Government do not inherently make a person notable, nor are these awards notable enough to make the subject notable. I also noticed that you removed the AfD template from the article, which was reverted. Please refrain from removing the template in the future. GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that books published by the Central Government may not inherently establish a person's notability. However, it's important to note that the book was inaugurated by M. Venkaiah Naidu, the former Vice President of India, which adds a layer of significance to the author's achievements. Additionally, several sources have been added to demonstrate the person's credibility as an educator and artist. If there are specific types of reliable, independent sources that you are looking for, please let me know, and I would be happy to assist in gathering them. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for the oversight regarding the AfD template. I will ensure it is not removed again. Regards. Kolkata.cult (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from WP:COI or WP:UPE creation of the article, simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 09:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like cover letter and resume for a job. All the sources on the page are primary, unreliable and paid publicity. The subject has not made a significant impact and did not make any achievement worthy of notice nationally or internationally. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Bondi

[edit]
Bradley J. Bondi (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)

None of the references in this article about a lawyer show significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add; I have removed two existing references which did not mention him. Article has been tagged as orphan for six years, notability and advert for two years, and was recently tagged with possible CoI. It was also recently cut down by another editor from a longer version with no sources, but the quality of those sources is not better than the existing ones. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment When I looked at this I thought it would be a straightforward senior-lawyer vanity page. I tend to agree that on his career alone, he gets nowhere towards WP:GNG despite having been prominent. There are a few borderline articles like this and this talking about him taking on clients and a court judgment relating to conflict of interest. But nothing that profiles him in the way this article does that doesn't seem to be relying on a press release and CV. Note that the article doesn't mention he's Pam Bondi's brother but that's not inherited. He also got coverage for endowing a scholarship.
    Where there is substantial coverage about him is this WSJ article about his 330 acre property and graveyard (someone else's family, also interviewed). The story is also here credited to WSJ.
    Cumulatively does this get him across the line? I'm doubtful but would be interested to see further views. Oblivy (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To improve the reliability of sources, it's essential to move beyond press releases, biographies/resumes, and articles drafted by the subject. The apparent CoI editing may be the most problematic. If the subject met WP:GNG, none of the above would be needed. Regarding the WSJ article about the property, the subject is a self-described contributor to WSJ. 2601:18E:C47E:CA30:28D2:4D3:69FF:69B0 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Horton

[edit]
Cal Horton (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)

Research fellow at Oxford Brookes, not reaching WP:NACADEMIC; Scopus publication output is consistent with their career stage. Has appeared in the media (including podcasts) as an expert with others, but this dosn't seem sufficient for independent notability (notability isn't inherited). Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Water Dog

[edit]
Moscow Water Dog (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 that this 18-year-old article is, in fact, a very long lived hoax. The article itself features no sources that even mention the "Moscow Water Dog". The article for, and every source regarding, the Russian Black Terrier (which this article claims is in part derived from the Moscow Water Dog) do not mention the Water Dog at all. I conducted a review of online sources; the only sources I can find that mention this supposed breed are purely AI-generated slop that has combed from Wikipedia, and a work of fiction that uses this article as inspiration.. There is as far as I can tell absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the MWD or any attempt at breeding it, so I believe the article is an intentional hoax added to Wikipedia when quality control was much lower (2006!) which has somehow survived until now. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep these sources seem to be enough to support existence and some notability: [23] [24]
I can look further if you want to see if more sources exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do Traumnovelle. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[25] mentioned here, might just be trivial.
[26] mentioned here, not a notable mention but a good source to show this isn't a hoax and the Kutepov source it mentions might be good coverage of the breed.
[27]
I presume there will be greater coverage in Russian sources too. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards (talk · contribs), I see on this page that you speak Russian; might you have time to see if there are usable sources in the Russian article, for a save for our old friend and FA writer, Yomangani? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of proposed and potential sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Nomura

[edit]
Takumi Nomura (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:BLP and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuichi Shimogami

[edit]
Yuichi Shimogami (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:BLP and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Eaton (actor)

[edit]
Harry Eaton (actor) (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 actor; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Roles have been minor parts. Sources are either primary (the actor's Instagram page) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of an upcoming supporting role in a single episode of an Outlander spinoff. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV to support GNG. Contested PROD so bringing to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn to review Newspapers.com. (non-admin closure)‎ Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Crossing

[edit]
Double Crossing (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)

At present, many of the Nancy Drew and/or Hardy Boys books have their own articles, though these articles consist only of primary references and plot summaries. I have not been able to find book reviews or any individual coverage of most of these books. This book (and those batched below) are part of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys Super Mystery series. I recommend redirecting all there. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

  1. A Crime for Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. Shock Waves (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Dangerous Games (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. The Last Resort (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. Buried in Time (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. Mystery Train (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. Best of Enemies (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. High Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  9. New Year's Evil (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  10. Tour of Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  11. Spies and Lies (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  12. Tropic of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  13. Hits and Misses (The Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  14. Courting Disaster (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  15. Evil in Amsterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  16. Passport to Danger (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  17. Hollywood Horror (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  18. Danger Down Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  19. Target for Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  20. Secrets of the Nile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  21. A Question of Guilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  22. Islands of Intrigue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  23. Murder on the Fourth of July (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  24. High Stakes (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  25. Nightmare in New Orleans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  26. Out of Control (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  27. Exhibition of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  28. At All Costs (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  29. Royal Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  30. Operation Titanic (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  31. Process of Elimination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment I feel this may be a WP:TRAINWRECK. A few of these books are definitely notable. This is too many to evaluate at once. Unless we want to go with the series-first approach we discussed at NBOOK earlier this year, which, fair, so I'm not going to vote keep yet (funnily enough someone else just voted the exact opposite kind of thing for deletion). PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: I did a search for the first two books in this list: "Double Crossing" and "A Crime for Christmas". For "Double Crossing", I quickly came across at least 2 reviews (Evening Express, Philadelphia Daily News). For "A Crime for Christmas", I found another two reviews (The Daily Herald, Tulsa World). Based on these results, I am not confident that an in-depth-enough BEFORE has been conducted for each of these books to delete 30+ articles at once. C F A 💬 21:51, 26 August 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.

Warm Dust

[edit]
Warm Dust (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 sources listed here provide little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the band. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might look again later but there's this (page 13) in Disc and Music Echo. A lot of what I'm finding merely mentions the band once. toweli (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Toweli, Hi thanks for the Disc and Music Echo "Warm Dust `back' Lennon" article link. That got me searching and I've found a few more articles now. I found the Record Mirror, October 9, 1971 article "Warm Dust slam the British mass media" on page 23, Melody Maker, July 25, 1970, News in Brief, Warm Dust section, Page 35, Melody Maker, May 1, 1971 "No Dust on peace show" article on Page 4, and the Melody Maker, January 30, 1971 article, War, Peace and Warm Dust article by Andrew Means on Page 11. So we have five articles on the group plus there's other stuff in newspaper archives that I can't access. One has to subscribe to them.
    Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; in response to my above comment defending Karl, I note again that WP:NMUSIC is not absolute (conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept). Aside from the stunt with Pope John, this band seems to be a footnote in the Paul Carrack story; I can't find anything usable for WP:GNG purposes, nor even WP:RS that go into enough depth for me to think this article should stick around. An article should never have to rely on unreliable blogs or be composed of facts from a bunch of miscellanious stray mentions in RS, which is all this band has. Mach61 19:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Warm Dust to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if a consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider the option of redirecting rather than deleting? This way we can preserve the history and links. There are a number of possibilities. There is Paul Carrack in his Career section, Ace, and there's Alan King etc. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Karl Twist we can't really do that, see WP:XY Mach61 12:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or redirect--He's always been dismissive of them, but brief mentions of the band have appeared in RS on Carrack for five decades. A 1982 Rolling Stone profile mentions that their "major [sic] to fame was a psychedelic antiwar LP". The only early 1970s things I found were short articles or reviews in Kensington and Chelsea News, Daily Post (Liverpool), and The Oregon Journal. Caro7200 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the sources linked by Karl Twist. toweli (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the sources identified in this discussion by Karl Twist and Caro 7200 including reliable newspapers and magazines that together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep: nominator has changed opinion to keep with no dissenting opinions, effectively withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Wyckoff

[edit]
William Wyckoff (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)

Short BLP created by an experienced editor. Tagged for notability as part of a NPP in JULY 2024, no improvements made. Nothing in the page or that I can find which proves notability. Certainly not WP:NPROF, reviews of books are in science journals so do not support WP:AUTHOR. Delete unless someone can edit to demonstrate notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anton Kustinskiy

[edit]
Anton Kustinskiy (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)

Despite his 12 minutes of football for Dinamo Brest, I can find no significant coverage of him at all in Russian nor Belarusian Cyrillic. Belarusian Wikipedia has no decent sources either. No sign of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikail Akhmedov

[edit]
Mikail Akhmedov (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)

His only claim to notability is playing less than one minute in a cup game. Aside from that, I found Chechnya Today, which mentions him running a training session for kids at a local school, which, on its own, is not enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, which require significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Sesyavin

[edit]
Dmitri Sesyavin (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)

Sesyavin only ever played 13 mins in a cup match for Rotor's senior team, which is not a particularly strong claim to notability. I found Rambler, which mentions him once in the match report and once in the squad list, and Sport 34, which only mentions him three times in the match report itself. This is far from enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I felt I was too quick not to make further research on this subject. I later found out that the source was a newspaper. (non-admin closure) Gabriel (……?) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Maris College, Port Harcourt

[edit]
Stella Maris College, Port Harcourt (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)

A school that fails to meet the general notability guideline. The first source was from a site that claim to be a Nigerian newspaper which they are not so therefore not reliable. Aside that source there is nothing again found about this school. Gabriel (……?) 12:15, 26 August 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.

Yaroslav Shcherbin

[edit]
Yaroslav Shcherbin (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)

Was presumed notable for 28 mins in a cup match. Shcherbin has played in the lower levels since and there is no sign of passing WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Infokam, which mentions him scoring a hat-trick in the Volgograd Region Championship, which I can only imagine is a very low level in the Russian football league structure. This is far from enough to pass our guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of El Salvador, London

[edit]
Embassy of El Salvador, London (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 secondary sources, no content other than a directory listing. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimon Lidsey

[edit]
Jaimon Lidsey (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. All sources provided are primary except the Eurosport article. When I read that article it contains no mention of Lidsey. A search for sources only comes up with speedway related sources which are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Topic banned from deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Puller

[edit]
Dog Puller (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 seems overly advertisal and also doesn't seem especially notable. Lastly, I am suspicious of the sources. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook, Indiana

[edit]
Sandy Hook, Indiana (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)

A spot NE of Jackson Pond where the road goes one way and the railroad the other after running in parallel for some distance. Beyond that I have nothing except the one year post office, which is never a good sign. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep - I Added Quite a few Sources, It Seems Like this Was a Fairly Populated Settlement, I also Found two well records for sandy hook. (though i did not add them as a source :https://legacy.igws.indiana.edu/pdms/WellSearch.cfm) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (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:NLIST. Sources are unreliable or do not talk about the programming as a whole. Many of the sources are primary cited to the channel itself. There is currently only eight active programs which can be merged into the main Pogo (TV channel). In fact, those programs don't even appear to be original programming so they originate with another network. As far as the argument that the list serves a purpose, there is already a category for its original programming which serves such purpose, especially since the shows listed here are mainly originating from other networks. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Bravo Moreno

[edit]
Hiram Bravo Moreno (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 sufficient coverage of this Mexican volleyball player to warrant a stand-alone article, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Possible redirect targets include Mexico men's national volleyball team and 2022 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship squads. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 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 11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Vada Vala

[edit]
Vishal Vada Vala (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)

Simply fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sources are not helpful toward establishing notability on this subject, the ones from WP:BEFORE are not helpful either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waris Islam

[edit]
Waris Islam (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:NWRITER and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vera Monroig

[edit]
Roberto Vera Monroig (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:NPOL. A mayor of Adjuntas needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to merit a standalone article, Monroig does not pass any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punam Devi

[edit]
Punam Devi (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:NPOL, WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaeddin Qassemi

[edit]
Alaeddin Qassemi (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 only sources for this WP:BLP1E refer to a stunt over five years ago where he claimed to have produced a water powered car - a claim which was, needless to say, never independently validated. Note the conspiracist language at the end. Water powered cars are, of course, impossible: it takes more energy to split hydrogen from oxygen than you get from the hydrogen, because the laws of thermodynamics are a thing. We can describe notable bollocks (see Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car), but we can't do it without reality-based sources, and the sources here are (a) not good and (b) not truly independent, since all reference the same stunt and take his claims at face value. It is inconceivable (and yes that word does mean what I think it means) that this would not have had ongoing coverage if it were genuine. And by "ongoing coverage", I mean at the very least an all expenses paid trip to Stockholm. In the end, this is just another instance of the water powered car hoax, with its attendant conspiracy theory. Any content online is always related back to the same initial stunt. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of WP:PUFFERY in the article itself, so when I went to go look at sources, they looked pretty low quality, especially for the accolades that would have issues attributing notability. Like Guy alludes to, there are some independent coverage issues, and this ultimately doesn't reach WP:SUSTAINED coverage in depth needed for notability. I thought it was worth seeing if they could reach notability through WP:FRINGEN, but I'm not seeing that here either. KoA (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markíza Dajto

[edit]
Markíza Dajto (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 previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:

  1. that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
  2. that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.

These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Institute of Medical Sciences, Kasna

[edit]
Government Institute of Medical Sciences, Kasna (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 existed for >8 years with only primary source. Search for mentions only show trivial coverage, such as listings not accompanied by commentary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could be wrong, but it does not appear to award degrees; their website seems to specifically list MBBS and DNB courses without calling them degrees. The article is entirely unsourced and doesn't appear to be covered by any secondary sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. These are similar to Government Institute of Medical Sciences, Kasna page. Please nominate them to be deleted if you find it needed. Thanks.

14.139.183.119 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nellore Airport

[edit]
Nellore Airport (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)

Always been a proposed airport, no developments. Appears to be TOOSOON. Can be recreated if the airport actually reaches construction or approval stages. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Windhoek

[edit]
Embassy of Germany, Windhoek (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 merely confirms it exists. No third-party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities

[edit]
List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very unclear whether this group of "lower communities" which includes e.g. Sat-Sudra (considered higher castes), is a commonly accepted grouping with a clear definition, or some division created specifically for this article. Also not clear if the topic (Sanskrit texts by caste division) is a topic of study and whether these people are grouped together scholarly, or if this is some novel WP:SYNTH list. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of Sat-Sudra is very badly written. I have suggested an edit but my edit is reverted. Please check. Sat-shoodras are only higher than other shudras (asat shudras) and lower than every other varna. That is, Lower than Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishya. See the note on sat-shoodra there. Caste boundaries can't be clearly defined due to their complexities. The main castes are mentioned themselves which are considered lower nonetheless. Sat-shoodra only highlights their status in varna system. This is a dynamic list and more people from other communities can be added by everyone. The topic of debate has always been whether lower communities have contributed to sanskrit among scholars. This article helps in breaking the myths of denial of education and lack of scholarship among lower communities and foster inclusivity. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and WP:RS. Almost 60 % of the sources are unreliable. Andhraportal, wisdomlib, jainqq.org, sanskritkosha,sndp, sanskritdocuments etc., are not RS. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources, which I find none here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiol Rexhepi

[edit]
Fabiol Rexhepi (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)

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only stat sites and passing mentions can be found. Modest career with 90 minutes in Albania's highest league and 41 games in the semi-pro second tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samet Ruqi

[edit]
Samet Ruqi (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)

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Modest career with 5 games in Albania's highest league (according to Worldfootball) and several seasons in the semi-pro second tier. The best sources I could find were this short interview and this short transactional news piece. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRAM diet

[edit]
CRAM diet (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)

An article about a medical diet treatment. Dismally sourced, and flagged as such since its creation in 2010. I can't find any reference that remotely meets WP:MEDRS (everything online seems to be a mirror or rewording of this article). I asked for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#CRAM diet to no effect. If this was in any way a notable treatment, surely there would be some worthwhile mention online for it. I don't think we should redir to the similar BRAT diet, which is much better sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Inner Mongolia

[edit]
Flag of Inner Mongolia (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)

As the article's first sentence states, Inner Mongolia does not have a flag. The article has not been reliably sourced for almost six years and this is unlikely to change because no notable flag has been claimed as the "flag of Inner Mongolia". The scope of the article is more akin to "flags used in Inner Mongolia" or "flags used by Inner Mongolian organisations", as there is a gallery of organisational flags and a brief write-up on two organisations'. However, none of this is sourced, and the actual scope of the article is extremely limited anyways, being nothing more than a mirror of a Wikimedia Commons gallery. Yue🌙 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Chișinău

[edit]
Embassy of Germany, Chișinău (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:ORG. Article is merely a 1 line sentence which confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Schuster

[edit]
Kim Schuster (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 cites one source of dubious reliability. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chol-ho

[edit]
Kim Chol-ho (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Chol-man

[edit]
Choe Chol-man (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lâm (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear craze

[edit]
Clear craze (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)

Concerns about WP:GNG as raised earlier on the article's talk page by another user, which I'll repeat below:

A quick search of Google Scholar returns the sum total of one book that mentions the concept of a "clear craze" ever existing, or that it was a thing that was defined to the 1980s or 1990s. I am almost certain this article fails notability and significance. I am not sure how I ended up here to be honest but I see no significance or notability to this article or its contents. Moreover, I fail to see how the term "clear craze" is encyclopedic in any real sense. Further to the point tabloid trends do not construe a relevant or notable reason for this article to be here.

At current, this article loosely collates a list of products that were released around the 1990s that had a transparent design, which is anecdotally indeed something that some products did during that time that can be called a trend. However, the article's collation of them and framing them as a "clear craze" overstep the mark when the nomenclature and grouping is not subject to significant secondary coverage. We don't have an article for Global Village Coffeehouse even though the term means something and connotes an obvious trend without more secondary sources that substantiate the term. Some reflections include the following:

(1) Firstly, on the use of the phrase, the beverage 'clear craze' seems very loosely to be a thing that some sources like the Newsweek article in the context of the trend to create clear beverages or consumer products to reflect claims about the purity and healthiness of the product. I am not sure that this makes it notable, given that the only source really holding the article up at the moment is the Newsweek one, but it seems that this is where the term is coming from. There's very little secondary analysis, and pivotal sentences in the article like "the clear craze became official with its first wave of products" are unsourced. A brief look around for the term doesn't find much use of "clear craze" as a phrasing, although I found it in or the book The Nineties by Chuck Klosterman (around p. 191) [36]. So thinking critically here, without evidence of consumer demand for this style, "craze" at best falsely connotes a marketing strategy that does not, in fact, reflect a "craze" for the products. The most notable example on the page, Crystal Pepsi, was a failure.

(2) Following from that, on the categorisation of products included, the article spuriously conflates the concept of the 'clear craze' as it applied to beverages and consumables to other trends in transparent product design, particularly transparent casings of consumer electronics in the later 90s that seem to have occurred well after the fact of the sourced products. From what I can tell, the link isn't explicitly made by the sources. Ultimately, the article is a list of products with very little explanation of what unites them. There is not a lot of sourcing or analysis to justify why certain things are in the article other than that an editor or other has found a source about a clear-looking product from that era, attributed it to the "clear craze", and put it in. This is not really the most rigorous approach when trying to define a term for a historical design trend.

If this is deemed notable, suggest a rewrite of the article focusing on (a) the substance and use of the term, and (b) being more rigorous about what about products from that era make it attributable to the trend, backed by sources. Welcome any thoughts - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansolet Rossouw

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

Not a notable model. No references that are non-trivial and non-promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to which references are "trivial" or "promotional" as last I checked, News24 is a South African news website, not PR Newswire. Marie Claire is a fashion magazine. V is a fashion magazine. CR Fashion Book is a fashion magazine and so on. None of them are providing trivia. They verified the work she's done and according to the sources… it's notable. Trillfendi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just asking (again) as the original creator where the "trivial mentions" in particular are here. Because according to the many sources I've been able to find that substantiate independent notability, the work in her career especially on the runway is notable. Being on the cover of Vogue in any country as a model, is notable, let alone multiple countries. Most of these metrics were decided years ago when reassessing WP:NMODEL. Sources ranging from actual newspapers in South Africa (where she and her story were literally on the front page) to actual fashion magazines, I just don't see the perceived failure of GNG. Nobody has given a clear answer on it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's look at the sources currently in the article:
  • [37] is just a data-base entry in a fashion database. It doesn't establish notability, and the only thing it's supporting is the name of her agency
  • [38] is an interview with her, sans any third party analysis of her or commentary on her works.
  • [39] mentions who she is, her height, Instagram, and agency. There are two additional sentences about her. It doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV.
  • [40] has two sentences about her. Again, it doesn't rise to the level of SIGCOV
  • [41] has her name as part of a list. It doesn't even have a picture.
  • [42] I was expecting to have to gloss over this one, due to the source being in Ukrainian. However, it's literally just pictures of her as part of a spread- she's credited as a model, but the source itself is unusable for any information about her. And, unless there are sources independent of both her and Vogue talking about it, it doesn't make her notable.
  • [43] is just an interview.
  • [44] is an interview with some limited commentary.
  • [45] is an interview with two and a half paragraph's worth of independent commentary in the beginning.
  • [46] is fine. The author (Marisa Crous) is in direct contact with her, but I'll AGF on editorial control and input. (It's News24)
The following aren't listed, but I've looked them up as part of my WP:BEFORE.
  • [47] has two, mentioning she was part of a fashion show and listing some gigs she'd had. The rest is just photos, unfortunately. It's not really SIGCOV.
  • [48] says its about her becoming a covergirl for NARS, but it's actually about a NARS product line.
  • [49] is about another fashion show. It has another few lines about her. Being generous, this rises to SIGCOV. Again, it's a News24 source by Marisa Crous
So, all in all, we have two sources that could help the subject pass WP:GNG- but both sources are written by the same author for the same newspaper, so they can't really said to be independent of each other. The relevant SNG would be Wikipedia:NMODEL//WP:NENT, which would allow her to pass if she'd had significant roles in multiple notable productions (The Vogue cover shoot is just one), or if we had sources showing her contributions to modelling were particularly unique, prolific or innovative- which, again, we not seeing. I think the promotional comments are harsh- while none of the cited news articles are hard-hitting journalism, they just seem fluffy. If the two sources were written by different authors, and there was a little bit more to them, I'd have maybe gone with a keep vote. Perhaps a bit WP:TOOSOON? No prejudice against re-creation if better sources are found. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

[edit]
Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone International School

[edit]
Cornerstone International School (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)

Declined draft moved by original author. Article is about a school with no independent significant coverage from reliable sources. This fails WP:NORG. I am not opposed to this going back to draft if evidence that this private school is potentially notable is given. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is wasting time in AFD, it should have been deleted via CSD A7. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:A7 specifically doesn't apply to education institutions. I think this is the right venue, although moving declined drafts to mainspace is what is time wasting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or else just delete it, and to be clear, if it were draftified and then moved to mainspace again without an accepted AfC submission, I would !vote to delete. I have tried searching, although the name is tricky as it is not unique. Adding Nigeria as a qualfier turns up almost nothing and nothing useful. Sources may exist that are not in English, but as it stands there is no demonstration of notability on the page, nor any other sources to consider. On the plus side, the school has been open nearly 30 years and appears to have a suitably large role that its notability within the area it serves may well be sufficient. Schools don't have to be internationally renowened to have a page, but they do need to be shown to be notable with reliable secondary sources. The page creator has added quite a lot of good history, but the sourcing on that is also unclear. The creator is new to Wikipedia, and perhaps unaware of the notability guidelines, and it would be unfortunate to waste their efforts by summarily deleting this page. I think draftify is appropriate in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cornerstone International School is one of the most reputable and notable schools in port harcourt, Nigeria. You could try searching on Google for Cornerstone International School Port Harcourt. It is literally the biggest school in town which is why I was surprised when t wasn’t in the list of notable schools in port harcourt, category and then I decided to add it. The other schools in the area you can check also don’t have as reputable online sources except their website information because schools or anything not political rarely get written about online in that area of the world. I think yall are using your first world lenses a bit. That school is really renowned. 31.205.127.189 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting notability is not going to cut it at AfD. We need to find sources to demonstrate notability. Searching Google for "Cornerstone International School" "Port Harcourt" yields just 31 results (and 27 duplicates). I have reviewed them all, and none will do. Sources demonstrating notability must be independent, reliable secondary sources that significantly cover the school. Almost all of the 31 sources are not independent. Two news articles show up, being [50] and [51]. I have questions about reliability of the second, but these are moot because in each case the mention of the school is very much passing ("When the reporter arrived at the location, she met a Cornerstone international school, instead." is passing and just odd - I presume she means the water company address turned out to be a school, and the article is about the company. The school was just what she saw. "Edo-born Jss 1 student of Cornerstone International School, Port Harcourt launches herself into the music world" is about the student and does not discuss the school further). There is nothing in Google Scholar and no book mentions. So at this stage we have nothing, thus the delete !votes below.
Your comment about first world lenses is not wrong in my opinion, but it is poorly phrased as an accusation. I have noted before that it is generally much harder to show the notability of schools either in non English speaking communities or in Africa, and sometimes, with diligent searching, I have been able to show that a school that appears non notable is notable. I am perfectly willing to spend longer on such schools. However, The school is really renowned is not going to sway any opinion. If it is renowned, what coverage demonstrates this? Does it go by another name? Are there sources in another language? I note it is listed in this French language listing of schools [52], but that one I have already considered because it goes by its English language name. But perhaps there are sources we are missing. If you want to save this, and have it draftified, you need to help with the source search, because at this point I am stumped. Without sources, the !voters below are correct to argue for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : There is no point draftifying since the article creator believes the subject is notable. I have done my research on Google. The school might be popular in Port Harcourt but fails to meet WP:GNG. All the media on the article page was uploaded 25 August 2024 which was yesterday. So there is something fishy that is either the article creator created another account to upload the images or he or she knows the creator of those images, they both work in hands. All media should be deleted as well as they do not proof owner of self publish work but gotten from either the school website or from images uploaded already by someone on google.--Gabriel (……?) 11:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NSCHOOL. Draftifying is pointless if it there is no sign of notability. Tagged the images for deletion on Commons. C F A 💬 23:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

[edit]
Siebel Scholars (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 referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - First, there are several websites with text almost identical to this article, but I can't tell whether the WP article is WP:COPYVIO or a case of citogenesis: (1), (2), (3).
The article needs to be revised to resolve the possible copyvio problem.
Second, there are sources that could be used in an overhaul effort for this article:
Third, there are multiple listings by college, annually, naming scholarship awardees at the various institutions, with descriptions of the award, which colud provide in depth, reliable sources to revise the article.
Last, perhaps the best solution to the problem of potential copyvio might be to draftify this article, and rebuild it from secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A copyvio is unlikely. Looking through the article's history, the current version developed slowly over time. Here is the copyvio comparison for your link no. 1. It's blatantly obvious (and also kinda funny) that they just copied text from Wikipedia and made some minor changes to disguise it ("29" -> "various", "selected" -> "chosen", "on the basis of" -> "based on"). The comparison tool doesn't work for the other two links, but they're dated so we can look at the latest revision before they were published. For both no. 2 and no. 3, the text was already there. So the copyright concerns are baseless and the article should definitely not be draftified. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Rizivi

[edit]
Jia Rizivi (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- WP:NFILM is looking for Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
  • Note also: most sources refer to her as Jia Wertz, but her own web page uses Rizvi. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And bizarre system of reference names too: "one" etc. Have fixed the most-re-used. PamD 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

[edit]
Shirley Ho (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 nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

  • Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
  • Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:
  1. Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
  2. Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
  3. Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
  4. Impact on Higher education: no evidence
  5. Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
  6. Administrative post: no evidence
  7. Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
  8. Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [53], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [54], Blavatnik finalist [55], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [56]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
    • Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [57]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
    • The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
    • It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
    • Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [58] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
    It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases
It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.
Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.
Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [59], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
  • Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [60].
  • Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.
Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.")
    I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The awards (or near awards) all together come very close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would have expected more independent Google news coverage (so as to satisfy WP:GNG), but I think on net this meets the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 26 August 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.

Casino chip collecting

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - I might've nominated this too soon. (non-admin closure)‎ MiasmaEternal☎ 05:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Casino chip collecting (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 to meet the WP:GNG at first glance - no cited sources are independent or reliable, and does not appear to have significant coverage. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In a brief, preliminary search I can see that the topic of casino chip collecting has been the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of sources including:
  1. Las Vegas Sun
  2. Poker News
  3. In the Guinness Book of World Records
  4. KSNV
  5. Here
  6. New York Times
  7. Norwich Bulletin
  8. Las Vegas Advisor

Overall I believe there is enough to justify inclusion. The article as it stands is not well sourced, but I believe there is enough sourcing out there. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these revolve around a Guinness Book of World Records entry - a search on WP:RSN indicates a mixed opinion on the notability of Guinness Book of World Records. As for the rest of the articles, the majority seem to be mainly about individual chip collectors or (in the case of the NY Times article) a chip collecting convention, not the subject of chip collection. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede to you that the coverage primarily focuses on the conventions themselves rather than the hobby of chip collecting in isolation. However, the existence of dedicated conventions for casino chip collecting is a strong indicator of the topics's notability, particularly given their reporting in perrenial sources. These conventions highlight the significant community interest and engagement in chip collecting. To me, fact that enthusiasts gather to discuss, trade, and showcase collections, highlight's the notability of the topic. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by @MaxnaCarta especially the LV Sun and 3newsLV articles., Delmarvanow and Norwich Bulletin are substantial but maybe too regional. Plus a price guide which I think counts as book-length treatment of the subject for notability purposes, or at least significant coverage to the extent of any prefatory material.
I would note that the nomination statement does not state a WP:BEFORE search was done. Rather it appears to be based on "at first glance" and "cited sources". Such searches, if done, might have avoided an AfD as there are plentiful sources not found in the article. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 26 August 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.

Alüto

[edit]
Alüto (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 only Japanese-language sources I found seem to be press releases when machine translated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_August_26

Leave a Reply