Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 10 July 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. –  Joe ( talk) 17:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

1794 in Ukraine

1794 in Ukraine (  | 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)

GNG Martin talk 21:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)(strike withdrawn nomination statement) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_June_27#1794_in_Ukraine_(closed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to 1794 in Russia, in analogy to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 in Kosovo. Procyon117 ( talk) 09:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Flexcon

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

Appears to be a non-notable business, article created for promotional purposes. -- Beland ( talk) 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article.

By the way, User:Say ocean again, you are a very new editor but users are encouraged to improve articles during AFD discussions so you shouldn't have been reverting edits seeking to do this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Janneke Parrish

AfDs for this article:
Janneke Parrish (  | 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, WP:ANYBIO; at best WP:BIO1E. Also unambiguous WP:COI as page created and curated by the subject. Page was previously subject of PROD and deleted. Note my recent PROD tag was (appropriately) declined by Primefac: "cannot be nominated under PROD because of the previous AFD, and cannot be nominated under WP:G4 because it is significantly different than the original". Cabrils ( talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Covered in the Guardian [1] and the NY Times [2]. With the rest of the coverage for this activist, it should be fine for GNG Oaktree b ( talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood ( talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: and [3] and some textbooks talking about her in the last few years, showing sustained coverage [4] and [5]. Her situation at work is discussed here [6]. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to AppleToo. The serious WP:COI with the creator is an issue, but not the primary one. Per nom, Parrish is notable for one event: being fired from Apple as it relates to #AppleToo. 99.99999% of sources are specifically about AppleToo: nearly all about her firing. The sources Oaktree b shares are the same topic, sustained or otherwise. The very first article about #AppleToo was in Vice, some weeks later The Guardian covered it, and of the hundreds of results during the first month, there is nothing about Parrish. Her first mention is in The New York Times about the recording that was leaked and #AppleToo. For the following month Business Insider & Vox. That's 3 sources for #AppleToo as a standalone event—and BI is derivative of NYT.
Only 5 sources out of all of the sources about her are not related to her being fired. Only 2 of those are not related to #AppleToo. There's no case for WP:BLP2E here. Say ocean again ( talk) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Additional comment: I weigh events individually to determine notability. The Information and Stat News do not meet WP:EVENTCRIT. (I can only read the first few paragraphs from The Information, but the title also says it's about her firing, so it is, by extension, related to the same event.) The time span between them is only a month and there's no lasting impact or sustained coverage of the event. ... viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. It's a bit misleading to say there are multiple sources from before #AppleToo, when there is only one: The Austin American-Statesman. She was not elected and it was local election so it fails WP:NPOL (not widely or significantly covered, either). The notable event is #AppleToo. WP:BIO1E says: In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Without Parrish's firing, there are only two intellectually independent sources. Vox and NYT. Coverage about her role in #AppleToo begins on the day she was fired from The Verge (Oct. 15, 2021: 3 months after #AppleToo began). Her role is described in a variety of sources as being one of the people who shared and posted the stories beginning in September: Parrish and Cher Scarlett, an Apple software engineer, then began sharing these stories on Medium. In Business Journals she describes analyzing the data. I went in and read every single employee story so that we could put together statistics on what they were about. Wired describes her as a founder of Apple Together, but there's nothing beyond this mention. WP:WEIGHT is a significant factor here for all of this, especially it is a WP:AUTOBIO. The firing is what is persistent here in the context of #AppleToo, so the question remains if her firing is a standalone event from #AppleToo, which would be the single qualifier for an article about her.
Separate comment: I don't think the Kara Alaimo source can be used. The author writes Parrish started #AppleToo. That seems false based on the sources (especially after having read them chronologically). While some later sources describe Parrish as a co-founder, none of the early ones do. They describe her as a leader for her role in sharing the stories on Medium. The Vice source says a pseudonymous Apple service provider "Fudge" co-founded the group and the vast majority say the founders were Scarlett and a group of anonymous 15 employees in Fudge's Discord server. This is part of the reason why I consider narrative to be a primary source, even if it's in a book. I am more wary of it with Parrish given that this is the second autobiography from her. Say ocean again ( talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: The nom is on the basis of WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies.
We've got WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues because of the test on WP:PSEUDO:
  • Is the individual substantially covered? Green tickY
  • Is the individual the main focus of the coverage? Red XN
She is the main focus on coverage of her firing, not the event itself
  • Is the person notable for any other events in their life? Red XN
Say ocean again ( talk) 20:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Agree with Oaktree b above. Looking closer, multiple sources providing in-depth WP:SIGCOV into her specifically ( 1, 2). Additional sources from before #AppleToo, such as 3. In regards to WP:BLP1E, I would say she does not meet condition #3: the event in question (#AppleToo) is very significant and Parrish's role in it was both substantial and well documented. CaptainAngus ( talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage on her activism in the area. Hence, the firing is just one aspect of her coverage and is not a single event. The sources noted by CaptainAngus and Oaktree b are examples of significant coverage. In addition, and unrelated to her work at Apple, Parrish has received significant coverage about her experiences with health professionals when she had a miscarriage and how changes in US regulations about abortion will impact women seeking medical care in the United States, see stories here: [ [7]] [8]. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Multiple sources provide in-depth significant coverage of the subject, meeting WP:SIGCOV There are sources that cover her activities and significance even before the #AppleToo event. Regarding her role in the #AppleToo movement was substantial and well-documented, and the event was very significant, meaning she does not meet condition #3. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage of her activism, showing that the firing is just one aspect of her broader public presence. Additionally, she has received significant coverage for her experiences with health professionals following a miscarriage and discussions on how changes in US abortion regulations will impact women's medical care. Thus, her coverage goes beyond a single event, substantiating her notability. Master rollo ( talk) 11:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman) (  | 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 person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 ( talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. -- Perohanych ( talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with this. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Indeed. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. -- 182.53.28.77 ( talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, I stand by my delete here. References are trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Everything else is routine press releases. C F A 💬 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 ( talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! -- Perohanych ( talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 182.53.28.77, this is a person. The applicable guidelines here are WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Lots of trivial mentions and interviews among the available sources, but I'd count Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan and DELO.ua as sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG. If the consensus goes toward deletion, I'd recommend a redirect to Kyivstar instead of outright deletion. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the coverage is trivial and consists only of passing mentions. The provided sources and WP BEFORE do not help establish notability. WP MILL and WP SIGCOV should be especially considered here. Old-AgedKid ( talk) 09:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Old-AgedKid please explain why Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan, DELO.ua and forbes.ua are not sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG? -- Perohanych ( talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    because of Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION - none of the provided source meet reliable source requirement per WP:CORPDEPTH (The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization) Old-AgedKid ( talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:CORPDEPTH — is about organizations and companies, not about persons. Oleksandr Komarov is a person. At the addresses, specified above, there are pages dedicated entirely to Komarov's biography and achievements. This does not fit the definition of trivial mention. -- Perohanych ( talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    yes, I messed up Corpdepth with WP:SIGCOV ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). None of the sources provided meets SIGCOV.
    Here is the assessment of the sources:
    Interfax - only a passing mention and a press-release with a direct referencing to the press-center of the company; Forbes Kazakhstan - a press-release style page with brief, résumé-like mentions of his past positions, lacking significant coverage that may establish notability. Delo - a passing mention of the person with routine mentions of his three previous positions (no significant coverage, just copy-paste). Forbes Profile - profiles are never considered reliable sources, and this one primarily contains his citations. EPravda - no significant, reliable, independent coverage, only a copy-paste of his past positions without notability analysis or other substantial information. Thus, the person fails WP GNG, ANYBIO and SIGCOV Old-AgedKid ( talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is not a good-faith analysis. The sources (EPravda, Delo, Forbes Kazakhstan and Interfax anyway) are legit, it's not churnalism, there's no evidence they're reprinted press releases. The Delo article is a four-paragraph profile on a list of top executives, not a "passing mention." Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I didn't find any truly significant coverage. All the sources mention the person only in the context of their new appointment and do not evaluate their notability. This is not churnalism but a classic reprint of trivial information—he was a manager here, then there, and today was appointed elsewhere. This does not meet the criteria for significant coverage (Sigcov) and definitely does not help in passing the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Old-AgedKid ( talk) 10:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not the entire article is promotional. It meets WP:BIO. Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DJ InstaMalik ( talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect as I cannot find how the person meets GNG. The sources are not the best either. But the problem is with general notability as general managers are not notable by their own. LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    General managers are not notable by their own, but a general manager who is ranked No. 1 as the best executive in the country, a general manager who has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of him — is notable. -- Perohanych ( talk) 13:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Canadian women government ministers

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

Poorly maintained and deeply-context deficient list with significant maintainability problems. For starters, it just indiscriminately lists women in one common omnibus list, regardless of whether they served in a federal or provincial/territorial cabinet, which isn't particularly helpful -- if there's any value to this, it would be far better served by either splitting the list up into separate subsections for each individual government, or actually creating full standalone spinoff lists for each individual government, for clarity of context, because federal and provincial/territorial cabinets are different beasts.
For another thing, it's actually missing far more names than it's including -- a quick WP:AWB comparison between this list and Category:Women government ministers of Canada found 326 women in the category who are not in this list, compared to just 135 women who are in both places.
This list hasn't been updated with any new names since 2017, so no woman who joined a Canadian government cabinet in the past seven years has ever been added here at all, and even in 2017 it already wasn't particularly complete, because the creator basically aimed for at-the-time comprehensiveness only for the federal and Ontario cabinets, and bunked off nearly the entire rest of the country.
In other words, this list is deeply incomplete, and isn't organized in a way that would actually be helpful or valuable to a reader -- and since we already have Category:Women government ministers of Canada as it is, it's not entirely clear that it would be worth the time investment to actually fix this list. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody actually is willing to put in that time, but it's not serving readers to hold onto a deeply incomplete and poorly organized version that isn't actually being repaired. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Antoni Potocki (1780–1850). Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Przemysław Potocki

Przemysław Potocki (  | 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 and WP:SIGCOV for WP:BLPS. In my opinion, its not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 ( talk) 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I would like to say that this article does not contain footnotes and it says " He was married to Princess Teresa Sapieha since 1830. They had five children together: Roza Marianna Potocka, Idalia Potocka, Pelagia Potocka, Stanisław Antoni Potocki and Antoni Potocki. " No further description and some hopeless information AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam ( talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

J.J. College of Arts and Science

J.J. College of Arts and Science (  | 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 is written promotionally Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 18:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 03:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Internet television providers

List of Internet television providers (  | 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 vague definition of 'internet TV provider'. Questionable accuracy, see Germany for example where linear channels are listed and which are not 'Internet TV providers'. Lack of references, and seems to be an easy target for vandalisers who want to promote their own services. Amchipo ( talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This article feels like a victim of the times. It was created 15 years ago, when streaming services were nascent and Netflix's only existed in the United States. Now, there are lots of flavors of internet TV, from on-demand streaming services like Netflix etc. to virtual MVPDs that mirror the cable bundle and free ad-supported streaming television that is typically a series of linear channels. The page size graph mirrors this explosion: from 2015 to 2017, it grew from 8 kB to 35 kB, and it went from 47 to 64 kB in the last two years. We have hit a point where a list presents more maintenance load than it is worth. WP:CLN notes, Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. This, I believe, has happened to the topic as a result of secular growth. Category:Internet television streaming services was created in 2018 and has some 130 entries. Someone should review the entries in the list and look to see that relevant ones are in that category. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 02:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Batman#Technology. I see a rough consensus to Redirect this article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Batboat

Batboat (  | 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 WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta ( talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    "[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender ( talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Batman#Technology -I had already stated in my previous comment that I was fine with Redirecting if someone identified a good target, but just to help make it clearer, I'm striking my Delete suggestion to an explicit Redirect recommendation instead. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @ Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs ( talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Doctor Who items

AfDs for this article:
List of Doctor Who items (  | 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 have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Retarget items in the list and Delete list.
-Celery to Fifth Doctor
-Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS
-Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks
-A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)
-Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16
-Matrix to Gallifrey
-Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand
-Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)
-Sonic Screwdriver has an article already
-Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete
-TARDIS has an article
-Time Scoop to The Five Doctors
Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.
Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I WP:BOLDLY edited the redirects based on these suggestions. Other editors can edit them further if they so choose. I support deletion, as the nominator. Jontesta ( talk) 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I have no idea what this proposal is asking a closer to do ("retarget"?). Is it an argument to Keep this article? I'm not concerned with items on this list, I need to know what should happen to this specific article, in its totality. It's Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draftify, those are your options from a closer's point of view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz In this case, those arguing delete/retarget is asking for the closer to delete the article, I believe, while the redirects are sorted out individually on the editor side of things, though to any editors who voted Delete and disagree, feel free to speak your minds. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. The article is a complete mess as far as selection criteria goes; most of the entries are described elsewhere. Some of the redirects targeting this page should be kept and re-targeted to other pages (generally the episode(s) the item appeared in); I think that is what the "retarget" votes refer to. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a rough consensus to Keep this article, especially after work was done on the article through the course of this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written like a narrative around the leadup to and during the fight. Additionally, all these extra details aren't supported by the single source provided, which I believe is WP:NOR. When looking for reliable resources about this fight and match card, I could only find a couple of news articles from ABC News (Australia) that explained the fight was happening and not much else. CREEDIXMO ( TALK) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - A notable world title bout, the article needs rewriting not deleting. Sam11333 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also opinions that sourcing should be improved. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Republicans pounce

Republicans pounce (  | 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 essentially about a handful of disconnected opinion pieces, with only one or two non-opinion pieces briefly criticizing them. There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic, and most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly while focusing on a more specific issue. It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets; the opinion pieces are lopsided representations of the Washington Examiner and the National Review. It's not appropriate to make a Wikipedia article for every opinion-piece talking point, especially ones that have failed to attract significant secondary or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Aquillion ( talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as the article's creator.
There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic See these articles which engage in an analysis of the phenomenon itself:
most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly Clearly not true. There are multiple opinion articles which do not merely use the term, but discuss the overall phenomenon as their primary focus:
It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets The "Analysis" section is a fair balance of the opinion sources I found when researching the topic, per WP:DUE. It is not surprising that more right-leaning commentators would discuss this phenomenon than left-leaning ones, nor that their views would appear in prominent right-leaning publications such as National Review and Washington Examiner. The Kevin Drum piece in Mother Jones is the only one I could find from a left-leaning perspective. And in any event, this "overrepresentation" is a content dispute, not a notability one.
Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, this Commentary article discussing the phenomenon is from 2015, which is indicative of sustained attention. Astaire ( talk) 23:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this article reads more like a defense of the term. It needs more content about its usage, its history, generally the things that would make it notable. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    •Comment I believe this article needs more reliable sources to prove notability if it wants to avoid deletion. Most of the sources were previously opinion pieces from random news websites, and an opinion cannot be considered factual sources. In fact, at one point, there was only a single source that was not an opinion. If actual valid sources could be found, I would not mind the article staying, but not in it’s current state where sources are dubious at best and the term hasn’t really been proven to be an actual notable thing outside of a couple rare “here and there” uses. For now I must support Aquillion’s AFD request, but it appears people are actively trying to edit the article to make it better and should be given more time first. Tritario ( talk) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the editor who added a "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" template. As I said on the article's talk page: "Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on." Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Would this make a better entry to Wikitionary? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Dunno, I don't use Wiktionary. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't see how it can misrepresent publications overall when the authors are all individually named. Potential alternate notable opinions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. On the surface it is a bit long for an article based on 3 sources, but reading through it doesn't stretch them too far. Editors should continue to be conscious that this is a relatively thin article and should allow any new sources that appear to substantially impact our treatment of its subject. GordonGlottal ( talk) 14:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The idea is that the Wikieditor shoudn't be the one to string it all together. There should be at least one article, preferably more, that mentions these people collectively and says "Yes, that's the same thing." Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep:If a major paper like The Journal uses this term as a headline, there is little doubt that this is notable and that a Wikipedia page has merit. Quote Veteran ( talk) 05:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:HEADLINES, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I may be somewhat biased on this specific issue, because I have a draft on my computer of an article very similar to this one, but I will say this nonetheless. As a few people have articulated above, it seems to have some pretty wide coverage, and meta-discourse topics like this can certainly be encyclopedic if they're written well.
jp× g 🗯️ 20:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

TRENDS Research & Advisory (  | 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 notable. Un assiolo ( talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Sources do not establish notability whatsoever. Also is one of them seriously a job listing??? Procyon117 ( talk) 09:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article.

Just curious, User:Nolan Cohen, did you create your account just to nominate this article for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Inno Setup

Inno Setup (  | 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 topic does not have a detailed independent secondary source and is also not compliant with WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are either blogs or simply software instructions. Nolan Cohen ( talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Nolan Cohen ( talk) 21:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply


  • Comment. The sources presented above are either instructional guides for downloading software or lack in-depth, detailed coverage. Also, some sources have a promotional tone, such as the one on Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are also sources that remain unverified. Nolan Cohen ( talk) 08:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    These instructional guides aren't just for downloading the software. I don't see why they should be disqualified. Keep Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The WP:PARTISAN clearly mentions that: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Of course, I am not urging to use the exact same tone or point of view from the sources. I have verified all the sources that I provided. I want to highlight that WP:SOURCETYPES mentions that, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The peer-reviewed scholarly articles I provided in the sources, clearly mentions Inno Setup as a "powerful" and "popular" piece of software. Uvarun2009 ( talk) 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I believe the many references (shared above) most likely fulfil the first criteria of WP:NSOFT, namely that it is "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". It is featured extensively in books relating to development, often acknowledging its popularity or functionality (e.g. "First introduced in 1997, Inno Setup today rivals and even surpasses many commercial installers in feature set and stability"). Despite the significant number of such references, I'm not confident many are particularly in-depth. Nevertheless, I still feel Inno Setup is notable enough and that this is established. GhostOfNoMeme 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ Buba, Yusuf. Mastering Python. A Comprehensive Journey from Beginner to Professional. BookRix. ISBN  3755445743.
  2. ^ Gunderloy ·, Mike. Coder to Developer Tools and Strategies for Delivering Your Software. Wiley. pp. 277–278. ISBN  9780782151251.
  3. ^ Thorn, Alan. Game Engine Design and Implementation. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 562. ISBN  9781449656485.
  4. ^ Thron, Alan. Cross Platform Game Development. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 359. ISBN  9780763782818.
  5. ^ Schummer, Rick; Borup, Rick; Adams, Jacci. Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions. Hentzenwerke Publishing. pp. 429–450. ISBN  9781930919327.
  6. ^ Nasucha, Mohammad; Rahmat, Revo; Satrio, Muhammad; Khornelius, John Bryan; Hermawan, Hendi; Handoko, Prio (3 May 2024). "GUI Development for An Image Enhancement Application to Support Computer Vision". International Conference on Artificial Intelligence For Internet of Things: 1–4. doi: 10.1109/AIIoT58432.2024.10574765.
  7. ^ Tyndall, John B. (15 October 2012). "Building an effective software deployment process". SIGUCCS: 109–114. doi: 10.1145/2382456.2382482.
  8. ^ Signoret, J.; Balme, S.; Theis, J.M. (October 2013). "A friendly tool to remotely follow-up fusion machines experiments". Fusion Engineering and Design. 88 (6–8): 1455–1459. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.03.023.
  9. ^ "linguist/lib/linguist/languages.yml at master · github-linguist/linguist". GitHub.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance

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

Non notable local residents association. Mccapra ( talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Namaste Henry

Namaste Henry (  | 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 notable. Un assiolo ( talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:A7 would apply in my opinion, because the claim of "India's largest advertising company" is simply not credible. But I didn't mean to criticise you for bringing it to AFD: that was a perfectly valid action based on your assumptions. Wikishovel ( talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

M.K Varghese

M.K Varghese (  | 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)

BLP of a local mayor who does not pass NPOL and is not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It’s a district capital and mayors of district capitals in the U.S. are not generally notable. Mccapra ( talk) 08:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment BottleOfChocolateMilk is correct about the standard our community uses to judge local elected officials. We want to see coverage of how a local elected official action impacts their community, especially with a retrospective perspective. What is interesting in this case is that the subject has received a lot of coverage for his praise of BJP leader Suresh Gopi and speculation about the mayor's political future. I wonder if that coverage is regional or national in nature, and to what degree this is a WP:BLP1E flurry of coverage. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Local politician who seems to have a bigger head than his notoriety. Speculation is nothing. Lauding, endorsing, or supporting other political figures is not inherited notability. Insufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Bearian ( talk) 02:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: does not pass WP:NPOL. Youknow? ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. FYI: Please do not bring articles to AFD unless you are seeking their deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning (  | 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 accepted this article from draft with the intention that it meets WP:GNG. This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process. However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks. I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more. The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion. I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keeping the article. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Favour Eucharia Ngozi Ugwuanyi

Favour Eucharia Ngozi Ugwuanyi (  | 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)

BLP of an educational administrator whom I don’t believe is notable. Article sourced to PR announcements and affiliated sources. Mccapra ( talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Stranger on the Bridge. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jonny Benjamin

AfDs for this article:
Jonny Benjamin (  | 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 the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person now, and I want the article to be deleted please Jonnybenjamin ( talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: Both Jonnybenjamin and Jlf2025 have held themselves out as the article's subject. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes i created a new account as per the advice of Geoffrey Lane-i was following the instructions step by step from his reply to Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team Re: [Ticket#2024071110029918] Request to delete page about me Jonnybenjamin ( talk) 07:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hatim Zaghloul

Hatim Zaghloul (  | 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 Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the article is written in a promotional and advertising tone, and lacks neutrality. فيصل ( talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. –  Joe ( talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Cityscape Global

Cityscape Global (  | 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)

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul ( talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • "Coverage" is not part of the criteria, the content of said coverage must include in-depth "Independent Content" about the topic. Looking at the sourcing you've referenced, this in Arab News is word-for-word the same as this article published the following day and shares the same information as this article also. Clearly the content is regurgitated PR. This in Gulf News is undoubtedly a PR piece which relies entirely on the mentioned company (and which also fails CORPDEPTH in any case). This in Entrepreneur is yet more PR, same details published in other places around the same time using the exact same information and descriptions, e.g. this. Exact same problems with this in Gulf Business - just regurgitated PR announcing details of the upcoming event. Note also how none of those articles have any attributed journalists. Finally, we get to this in Gulf Today which went around interviewing sponsors and exhibitors - none of this is in-depth "Independent Content" about the event. None of the above references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 20:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I stand by my vote. Arab News and Entrepreneur are both independent and reliable and don't do PR/promotion. Whether the article was republished from a news agency doesn't really matter in terms of notability. I am not familiar with Gulf News, though it seems to be a newspaper of record and I see no evidence of it doing promotional stories. The Gulf Today piece does not cover the event itself in-depth, but it can be strung together with many other similar stories (check Google News) to meet GNG. C F A 💬 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. –  Joe ( talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Ventrella

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

Fails WP: N. The sourcing on the article is almost entirely primary, and what secondary sources do exist are either not independent or do not cover the subject in depth. I also couldn't find any sources to establish notability either, unfortunately. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As per the nominator, the article is almost entirely primary references. After a (fairly thorough, I'd say) search, I'm able to find very little published in reliable secondary sources. GhostOfNoMeme 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While this page Fails [[WP:GNG], Jeffrey Ventrella is a renowned researcher and artist in both the Artificial Life and Virtual Worlds fields. As the conference organizer of the first and second International Conference on Virtual Worlds, I have invited him to present his works as invited lectures and keynotes. I recommend to keep his profile, but ask for modifications in order to add reliable secondary sources. Jean-Claude Heudin ( talk) 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've been invited to speak at international conferences too, but none of them were prestigious enough to count towards WP:NPROF. In order for your conference invitations to meet the standards we have, we would need to know that the ICVW is itself a well-covered and important conference. Since it's very new that might be hard to establish, but if you can provide some links to coverage of the ICVWs he appeared at that appeared in reliable, primary, independent news sources, that might help. Qflib ( talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    "While this page Fails [[WP:GNG]" -- that's all I needed to hear. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest too. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. FYI: A discussion can not be closed as "Soft Deletion" if there are any Keep votes. If an editor wants to work on a draft of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND and know you'll need to submit it to AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Poppy Morgan

Poppy Morgan (  | 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)

How has this survived the raised expectations around porn performers. The sourcing is well below GNG for a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Soft delete/Draftify - Mushy Yank provides enough sources to suggest that the subject potentially could be notable, but they aren't enough to meet GNG or warrant keeping this article. ~ Politicdude ( About me, talk, contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There really isn't much of any kind of coverage, outside of [22]. AVN wins are fine, but we don't count them towards notability, so there is no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Other example of coverage: The Yorkshire Post (bylined article in a very respectable newspaper) also states she's a notable pornographic actress. And that's exactly my point. I don't wish to challenge the decision on this Wikipedia to have an insanely high bar for notability of personalities from the pornographic industry, but, then, GNG requirements should apply to them in all fairness. Not to mention the fact that the city of Hull has found her notable enough to have her figuring in one of their official brochures! (Not that they would have had a hard time finding notable people associated with Hull) (read presented articles). I'll leave it at that.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 11:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

EOdisha Summit

EOdisha Summit (  | 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 the general notability guideline. No independent sources to speak of. Also bundling:

EOdisha Summit 2013 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EOdisha Summit 2014 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SaUp2014 ( talk · contribs) may need closer attention to determine whether any more of their articles merit deletion. – Tera tix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete. Articles make no attempt to establish a credible claim of significance, let alone notability. No independent sources of any kind and few sources in general. ~ Politicdude ( About me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. –  Joe ( talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jite Agbro

AfDs for this article:
Jite Agbro (  | 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)

Main reason is that the subject fails all 4 criteria of WP:ARTIST and the article reads like a Vanity page with the addition of the website and specific details such as "Agbro focuses on non-verbal communication and the idea that everyone presents themselves within a system" which is taken from non-independent/bias non-reliable references (museum which exposed the work of the subject). The subject fails WP:NBIO with lacking significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Lekkha Moun ( talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. –  Joe ( talk) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Seoul Tourism Awards

Seoul Tourism Awards (  | 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 award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.
[23] [24] [25] [26]
I can look up more upon request.
Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - I'm seeing quite a bit of significant coverage on Korean sources, especially on some bigger Korean news sites like YTN like here [27] [28] and Kyunghyang Shinmun (linked above). If anything, the Wikipedia article just needs some updating. MetropolitanIC ( 💬| 📝) 02:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG. Sufficient coverage exists in a number of reliable Korean-language sources. The article absolutely needs work, but the sources do exist. GhostOfNoMeme 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Maikop

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

Likely an unedited machine translation. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the existing citations are all primary sources, helping to explain the army-size exaggerations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In addition, the document of the Russian military historical archive is not specified correctly, and cannot be verified through the archive, the article really needs to be deleted for lack of sources Dushnilkin ( talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Kosmic Free Music Foundation

Kosmic Free Music Foundation (  | 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 was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli ( talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 ( talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 09:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Arjun Tudu

AfDs for this article:
Arjun Tudu (  | 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 page was previously deleted because it fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and it still holds true. Coderzombie ( talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Most of these sources are interviews and paid promotions and do not help pass WP:NFOOTY. The player has not garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements because he has not played at an international level and he has not played for an entirely professional league to satisfy WP:GNG. He is an upcoming player but it is too early to warrant a page on this subject because of insufficient significant achievements.

RangersRus ( talk) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)' reply

ALl of the sources have tons of secondary coverage that I will gladly cite if asked and there is no indication that any of them are paid promotions... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thats one of my more minor points, my point is that he was considered such a good player and significant figure in Indian lower leagues that he was called up to senior nationl team. This proves my point that all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Either way, he has many secondary sources about him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I never said has to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am saying he passes neither. Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL because he hasn't played professional football and the sources that exist don't justify WP:GNG Coderzombie ( talk) 09:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Tell me how this article doesnt meet WP:GNG. Im listening... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team.. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Arjun Tudu's page should be deleted because he doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability standards. Yakov-kobi ( talk) 14:00, 05 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - to the closer, nobody has explained how he doesnt pass WP:GNG which he clarly does... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep These are excellent references. The article is crap, but the subject clearly meets GNG. The previous deletion discussion years ago is irrelevant, given the amount of media coverage is major national papers since then. The GNG policy clearly supports keeping. I don't see what policy supports deletion. Nfitz ( talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the comment about him being an "upcoming player" is nonsense as the subject is 34 years old. Per Das osmnezz and Nfitz, I cannot see any policy-based arguments for deletion here. The sources mentioned in this discussion would help the development of the article, but coupled with what is already in place there, they appear to establish a sufficient level of notability. C 679 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The article already contains a couple of reliable sources, it's easy to find more. Tau Corvi ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 09:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Arcadia Global School

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

Likely this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Though per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME, schools are presumed notable, but here, I question its notability. It's a pure case of WP:TOOSOON. Welp, a redirect to the founder, Mohan G. Valrani may be good for WP:ATD. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Schooloutcomes does not claim that schools are presumed notable. It states that notability has to be proven conform Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). The Banner  talk 08:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The views for deletion carry more P&G weight, but failed to achieve consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Shafqat Baloch

Shafqat Baloch (  | 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 subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed ( talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No coverage in depth based on any independent or reliable sources thus it discouraged me from opposing the idea of D-Prod. 223.123.5.35 ( talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm sorry Saqib; although I share with you that this article exists in a terrible condition and has a plenty of WP:OR, we can't deny the fact that it passes WP:ANYBIO and should be kept. Nawaiwaqt has a detailed article of Shafqat Baloch dated 2 September 2019, although not much Nation reports his death in more than a paragraph. This should also be helpful. His role has had a significant impact, as well. signed, Aafi (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. signed, Aafi (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Premium Prestige

Premium Prestige (  | 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:ORGCRIT. Sourced with unreliable references. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Obaseki

Jennifer Obaseki (  | 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 on non notable lawyer who has received neither significant nor trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All of the 20 sources cited are primary sources and are unreliable. Ednabrenze ( talk) 07:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 08:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mobile secure gateway

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

The article appears to attempt to launder a trademark and/or rarely used buzzword as a legitimate topic in compute security. The article and inbound links were all created by what appears to be a single purpose account. There are essentially zero academic mentions of this term. Brandon ( talk) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Living Tombstone. Malinaccier ( talk) 15:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Zero One (album)

Zero One (album) (  | 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)

Same as the other nominations I made shortly before this one to come from the Living Tombstone, this album is a notability failure that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or NALBUM. All but two sources here are either Spotify or a blatant primary source like a merchandise store. The two sources that are actually reliable are 1 and 11, with 1 being a passing mention and 11 not even mentioning the album once. Any material worthwhile for this album is already included in the article for the band itself. λ Negative MP1 06:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This appears to completely over rely on primary sources. As such there is no evidence of notability.
TheBritinator ( talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Birbhum Pharmacy School

Birbhum Pharmacy School (  | 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)

It fails WP:SCH, no reliable source has been cited Pinakpani ( talk) 05:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to be sure this is an appropriate target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Deans Trophy season

2023 Deans Trophy season (  | 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)

Apparently non notable school rugby competition involving only six schools. Mccapra ( talk) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Panama Papers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

John Doe (whistleblower)

John Doe (whistleblower) (  | 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 ' WP:BOLDly redirected this to Panama Papers, however was reverted by an IP claiming that the redirect was odd given that no consensus had been obtained on either talk page. The subject has no independent notability outside of their role in the release of the panama papers. I'm not sure if this quite fits into WP:BLP1E given that the subject is anonymous and we don't know if they are still on this planet or not, however it certainly fits into the spirit of that policy given that the subject's notability is only understood insofar as they leaked the panama papers. Material about the subject is already covered in Panama Papers so there is no need for a merge and I am seeking community consensus that the redirect be restored. TarnishedPath talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect per nom. We don't know enough about John Doe to fill him out independently of Panama Papers Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 16:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise? as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Clappers Records

Clappers Records (  | 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 just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 ( talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 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) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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


The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 01:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Fluoric (iii) acid

Fluoric (iii) acid (  | 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)

"Hypothetical oxyacid of fluorine" that cannot chemically exist [45] and the only references to "fluoric acid" I could find online (including the Google Books link in the article) are as substitutions for hydrofluoric acid. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 02:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: The article on the hypothetical oxyacid of fluorine fails WP:V due to a lack of verifiable sources. There are no references in Google Scholar or Books that mention this substance. The only source provided is a dictionary from 1817, which is outdated and insufficient. Modern chemistry does not recognize this hypothetical substance, and the term "fluoric acid" is often misused as a synonym for hydrofluoric acid. Without reliable and contemporary sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines. Master rollo ( talk) 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V. If we can’t find it, or verify it, it’s not notable. Bearian ( talk) 02:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Cloud Constellation

Cloud Constellation (  | 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 establish notability under WP:NCORP. References almost exclusively covers planned partnerships with more notable companies. Brandon ( talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was procedural close‎. Page already removed per G5. Owen× ☎ 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Capital punishment in the State of Palestine

Capital punishment in the State of Palestine (  | 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)

Created by a now-banned sockpuppet in violation of a topic-ban. This page seems like an invalid DAB, but perhaps someone here can salvage it. Walsh90210 ( talk) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

AFD is unnecessary; I've tagged it with WP:G5. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sensorica

Sensorica (  | 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)

Project and organization both appear to lack notability, especially under WP:NORG. Article lacks sourcing and I was unable to find significant coverage via research. Brandon ( talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Zeno (programming language)

Zeno (programming language) (  | 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)

Didn't find any results beyond the download page for the interpreter. IntGrah ( talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_11&oldid=1235347430"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE