Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:56, 13 June 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 12	June 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bab-el-Mandeb#History. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge of the Horns

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

CRYSTALBALL proposed infrastructure with marginal & routine coverage for a bridge project that was cancelled 15 years ago. Very few references none of which are anything more than routine coverage of a proposed project. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Yemen. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bab-el-Mandeb#History where this is mentioned. This was alwasy a pie-in-the-sky idea that never had realistic plans. Redirect Al Noor City as well. Even in the aughts, the idea of building bridge to nowhere or to a megacity built out of nothing in Yemen should have gotten you laughed out of the room. Reywas92^Talk 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas. No evidence of long-term notability to justify a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 14 June 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 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Encyclopedia

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

Doesn't pass GNG. There is supposedly one review(?) of this on JSTOR from "Reference & User Services Quarterly" but it was being odd and wouldn't show it to me. Even then, not enough. Redirect/merge to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

FWIW this is not about the book The Holocaust Encyclopedia, which is notable but we don't have an article on it. This is about the USHMM online resource. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Museum as suggested seems fine. This is basically an extension of the collections housed by the Museum. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, Judaism, Websites, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Part of the museum and can easily be covered within. Star Mississippi 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sobovitz

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

Created by UPE user (subject admitted in IRC), a LOT of the references are the subjects own work, therefore nothing for notability. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Israel, and Europe. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not remove the problematic references and keep the other ones? Many of them are from independent media sources (Brussels Times, Times of Israel, Politico, Al Jazeera, etc.). 2A02:2788:224:538:311F:AC6C:14C6:4B14 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're written by Sobovitz; you can't use articles by the subject, those are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination, can confirm that this is un-disclosed COI as dislosed on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help, and the sourcing is insufficient to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it's a paid job, I won't even bother delving into whether it meets the GNG or not. I've also nominated for deletion an article closely related to Dan Sobovitz, which was also created by the same author as this one. --Saqib (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this not be speedy deleted, as it was created by/for UPE? Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If not speedy deleted, I'd delete for lack of sourcing. The Brussels Post and one Haretz article are written by the subject. Others are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 14 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanus Muller

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

This article falls far short of what is expected of a BLP. Had this been written only a few days ago, I would have immediately draftified it. As it is now a few years old, a discussion needs to happen in order to do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Music, and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. As for the shape the article is in: despite the plethora of scary cleanup banners, I've seen much worse (in BLPs in no danger of being deleted) and WP:DINC. And calling for draftification of a years-old article with years-old cleanup banners is just a dishonest way of calling for its full deletion after it sits unaddressed for another half-year. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The recent addition of book reviews strengthens the article's compliance with the notability guideline for authors. Deletion seems like a harsh solution. We should improve the article, not delete it. Waqar💬 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:NAUTHOR the subject is notable. While there are some issues with the article, this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. --hroest 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I accept the reasons for moving Draft:Friedrich Wilhelm Jannasch to drafts and will continue working on it, @UtherSRGhas also reversed my call to move Draft:South African Music Encyclopedia into the mainspace. Seems like a blanket clampdown on my actions, without regard for the relative merit of the articles. Viljowf (talk) 15:24, 18 June 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 TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in a TV Nation

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

I can't find sources that go in detail about this book beyond "Michael Moore wrote this". Redirect to Michael Moore? Or TV Nation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two sources about the subject:
1. Deggans, Eric (1998-12-21). "For those TV viewers who can still read" (pages 1 and 2). Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "But the story of how Michael Moore got this subversive bit of TV past the media buyers on Madison Avenue and cookie-cutter programers at NBC proves an engaging, delightful story. ... Wondering how Moore put together a story showing New York cabdrivers are more likely to pick up a white guy who served prison time for murder than a black man with a clean record? ... All of these stories and more fill out the pages of Adventures in a TV Nation, a blow-by-blow account of the stories behind the stunts that made TV Nation one of the most entertaining experiments in social criticism around."
2. This entry in Book Review Index, 1999 Cumulation notes that there was a review in Adventures in a TV Nation in "Ent We - N 27 '98 – p73 [1–50]".
  This entry suggests that Adventures in a TV Nation was reviewed in the 3 July 1998 edition of Entertainment Weekly. This was the home page of Entertainment Weekly in 1999. This is an example book review published on 17 February 1999. I was unable to find a review of Adventures in a TV Nation saved in Internet Archive. I've asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#1998 book review of Adventures in a TV Nation in Entertainment Weekly for information about this source.
I support a merge to TV Nation per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion if the book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. The book is about the author Michael Moore's work on the television show TV Nation, so I recommend redirecting to TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation.
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding a mention to TV Nation and merging then (well, basically redirecting). The Tampa source is decent but the other one (as found by the people where you requested it) is only one sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to the discussion about the Entertainment Weekly article: "The November 27, 1998 review by Bruce Fretts is only 1 sentence long: "In-your-face documentarian and working-class advocate chronicles the development of his late, Emmy-award-winning newsmagazine show"."

I agree with a merge/redirect to TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation since there is only one good source, which is insufficient for the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 15 June 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!} 00:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ibne Abbas

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

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable. Dawn article was written by Mateen Haider (not a press release) and includes biographical information which is useful per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. There is a lot of coverage about him in Indian media, like Syed Ibne Abbas: Low-key diplomat knows how to handle India and [1]. 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)— 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- IP - I repeat diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable. WP:BASIC also states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. We don't need BLPs on each and every other head of mission. Routine coverage of head of mission is expected, therefore such coverage should not be considered sufficient to establish GNG , which requires strong sourcing. For instance, if each of the 200+ sovereign states maintains an average of minimum 100 diplomatic missions abroad, that means roughly 20,000 diplomatic missions and roughly 20,000 head of missions. Do we really need a BLP on each of them based on some routine coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:18, 17 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) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LibStar is right, this particular article fails WP:BIO due to a lack of independent in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. The only one that seems to qualify could be the first source, and even then I'm not certain about the reliability. Just reads like a rehash of their resume. Pilaz (talk) 17:11, 23 June 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. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[2][3][4][5][6]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
- Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
- Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
- The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
- Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
- The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:COMMONSENSE as chief of police of a massive city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, Pardon my ignorance but I'd like to ask if being the "chief of police of a massive city" does automatically makes one inherently notable? And as far GNG is concerned, this BLP doesn't meet that threshold as I've done source assessment above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shall I cite WP:COMMONSENSE again... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necrothesp, OK, this might be my last reply, as I don't want to come across as bludgeon, but I find it intriguing that an editor voted to keep a BLP based on WP:COMMONSENSE. By this logic, every police chief of a massive city would easily gets a WP bio, based on some ROTM coverage. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I think that would be fair. After all, we wouldn't dream of not having a bio for the chiefs of police of London, New York, etc. And I'm not sure why you keep emphasising that this is a WP:BLP. So what? There's nothing unsourced here. BLP and notability are entirely different issues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Necrothesp and excessive use of WP:ROTM (an essay, never vetted by the community) as argument to dismiss valid reliable secondary references is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Saqib, either stop using this term or be ready for repercussions of wasting our time reading these poorly written cookie-cutter AfD rationales. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, And, why don't you just stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING and LOUTSOCKING! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ASPERSIONS. @Doczilla: has an advice for you above. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. There is enough coverage (with bylines) to meet WP:GNG:

"Lahore CCPO Dogar suspended by federal govt". DAWN.COM. November 6, 2022.

Bhatti, Haseeb (December 2, 2022). "SC reinstates Ghulam Mahmood Dogar as Lahore CCPO". DAWN.COM.

Malik, Mansoor (February 19, 2023). "Another leaked clip adds to Dogar controversy". DAWN.COM.

Bhatti, Haseeb (February 17, 2023). "SC suspends transfer of Lahore police chief Ghulam Mahmood Dogar". DAWN.COM.

2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 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.

I'm not sure if there is some connection between these two players and it would have been useful to get the article creator's opinion here but right now, I'm closing this discussion as a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Đorđević

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

This Serbian men's footballer, who was last known for playing in 2015 before disappearing, has not received enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I found are a report of him returning from injury in January and July transfer news, both from mentioned year. I'll admit that I don't know enough Serbian media to know if said sources are reliable, but neither of those pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Corresponding article on Serbian Wikipedia is likewise a stub; neither of the two sources listed there show in-depth coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Catania had a player Stefan Đorđević (footballer, born 1991) from 2016. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be snappy. My comment was a reply to a part found in the original AFD: "Possible dubious story of Đorđević being a former footballer of Italian club Catania, for which he has played 32 games since 2016. However, I can't find anything to verify it". This comment was removed some 8 hours before you entered the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Storyland Studios

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

Doesn't meet notability; there are no reliable significant coverage; hilghly promotional page 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 13 June 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. This was WP:CSD#G5 eligible as the creator was tagged as a sock of a blocked master that was blocked before the creation of the article. ‎. UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mykyta Nagatkin

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

Person is not notable, the article is promotional only with no significant reliable coverage; speedy delete? 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nick Nagatkin another previous attempt to recreate the page 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete - non-notable, undisclosed paid-for spam, created by Bodiadub sockpuppet, associated with known Wikibusines article Digis. MER-C 15:26, 15 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digis

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

Not notable IT company with no significant coverage; I've removed spam and paid placements; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Cyprus, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete - non-notable, undisclosed paid-for spam, created by Bodiadub sockpuppet, known Wikibusines article. MER-C 15:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a software development firm going about its business. The 2019 item from Zik provides detail about the company's origins but neither there not elsewhere am I seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 18 June 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!} 23:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [7]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([8]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure of any notability here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: didn't find coverage either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:08, 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 merge‎ to Calamba, Laguna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa

AfDs for this article:

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results (source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a legally recognized administrative unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale dozens of barangay articles have been redirected to their city/town articles, and a few were deleted through AfD's. Too many barangays (numbering around 40,000) mean too many stubbish or poorly-referenced articles to maintain, leading to frequent vandalisms or addition of unencyclopedic content like lists of schools, hospitals, facilities, businesses, landmarks, or tourist attractions. The issue was last discussed here (admittedly, there was no firm and final closure). See also Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 15 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!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Book search shows it's been discussed in parliament, is the site of a mango farm which has been studied a bit, and was on a map produced by a United States scout as early as 1902. But it doesn't have a page in Tagalog and further sleuthing was unhelpful. Not sure what to do here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calamba, Laguna. There is not enough WP:SIGCOV right now for a separate page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The rough consensus turns into a clear consensus once the blocked socks and the non-P&G-based (canvassed?) !votes are discarded. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing supporting GNG in the newspaper archives I've looked through. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and the fact that this is the primary source for this subject demonstrates that the subject lacks notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:36, 24 June 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 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.

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

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/

The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:35, 20 June 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, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources about the company found, some patents and government decisions. Listed in a paper here [9], but not really about the organization. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 27 June 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!} 07:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bays Brewery

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

Found some (old) coverage independent of business but not significant and reliable coverage per WP:Notability that establishes notability worth of an article, even in stub form, in my opinion. The business is no longer operational and permanently closed and even when open was a very small local brewery in New Zealand not notable or well known to the public (lived there for 15 years). I raised a PROD recently on this article but was not aware that there had been a previous failed PROD long before oldprods were added to talk pages, hence an AfD. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Companies. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "established in December 1993. It is no longer in operation." and nothing much else pretty well says it all. Bduke (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Not much exposure outside of the region it originated in. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe removing this article is the best course of action. The information provided indicates the subject lacks notability. Waqar💬 17:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:51, 15 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raba Khan

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

Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Radio, Entertainment, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them.
The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual.
No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable.
And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbeitPK, I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE, which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user. As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces.
Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source analysis:

This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video.
Daily Star 30-under-30 #1 has a good paragraph describing her
A short interview with a little more significant commentary
Daily Sun 30-under-30 article doesn't say much other than republishing the announcement
An entire article on her, which is probably sourced from an interview, but the newspaper is the one making statements so I think it's valid.
Another 4 good paragraphs in the Forbes list
BBC Bengali mention in review of Facebook influencers, only a little but it is there
More Daily Star coverage under being a 30-under-30 winner
Article on her, though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know
The interview mentioned, which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do)
Short article

Plus:

So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles. I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. czar 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSKJ-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another LPTV with mostly national programming and little-to-no significant coverage to speak of, which is of little surprise for an eventual HC2/Innovate station. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and yet another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect.. another station to become a redirect.. --Danubeball (talk) 00:20, 18 June 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. Participants are basically evenly divided on the fate of this article based primarily on whether on not sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. It is not my role to assess the sourcing myself so I must close this as No consensus based on the arguments presented here. I do see that the article would benefit from a thorough editing to remove any bias present in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.

To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.

Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 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!} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.

The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.

Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.

Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.

Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.

Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.

As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.

The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.

Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us. As for Wired, it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic. Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source. Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 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!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with. I don't find much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge with Epik. These two companies don't appear to have separate notability. Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Striking in favor of keeping. Will expand on why later; I don't have the time at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition. There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 28 June 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Through probably what is one of the oddest coincidences I have experienced on Wikipedia, I encountered the 30 N Gould Street, Sheridan, WY address independently when I noticed that it was related to lots of fraudulent and/or generally sketchy activity. This activity is covered in a variety of reliable sources, including The Sheridan Press (1, 2, 3), Reuters (via KSL, via The Malaysian Star), Overdrive, Esquire, The Washington Post, and the Gillette News-Record. I began to wonder to myself is it possible for an address to be notable but not the physical building itself? And I concluded that it was, given all of the coverage of it and the various scams that run through it. I then began to look back through Wikipedia to see if this was covered anywhere and, lo and behold, it was covered here. For reasons entirely unrelated to the acquisition of Epik, the address (and the registration agent operating out of it) had received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events.
The text of the current article puts a lot of weight on the acquisition of Epik. That's probably a mistake in terms of article content focus (at least in terms of covering the great variety of items associated with that address), but I now realize that the sourcing is quite clear: this article can exist as a standalone, and should exist as a standalone, due to substantial non-overlap with Epik in terms of what our coverage ought be. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:25, 2 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 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. The Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keep ones, but the proposed merger received enough support to get picked as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency

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

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep

No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 4 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!} 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep, but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 9 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!} 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the keep argument that it is an alternative version of the 2019 resuts. In that case it is a redundant fork, which is a WP:BADFORK and should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen content fork that delves into far more detail than Wikipedia should go into for speculation on the next election. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not speculation for the next election- it's an estimate of the results of the past election, which has been reported on by several major news outlets. These results will be generally used by both news organizations and Wikipedia (reflecting that use within reliable sources), for purposes such as reporting swing from 2019 to 2024 results by constituency. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional election results are not "speculation" as psephology is a precise science. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>precise results under the new boundaries usually cannot be known as election results are not usually reported for subdivisions of constituencies. However, it is possible to estimate what the election results would have been by extrapolating from local election results for which more granular data is known

Sounds like speculation to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our position to speculate on what is considered "speculation", only to follow the practice of reliable sources. Almost all reliable sources treat the Thrasher+Rallings estimates as authoritative election results, for example, a Labour win of Beckenham and Penge in the upcoming election would be reported by the media as "Labour hold" rather than "Labour gain" thanks to Thrasher and Rallings having determined it to be notionally Labour in 2019. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ideally this data would be incorporated into the individual constituency articles, rather than be in a separate list, but as long as this has not been done, it is useful to have these numbers on Wikipedia. The argument that thisis speculation is not sufficient. These numbers are used by pretty much all reliable sources covering the election even if they are only estimates. Gust Justice (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge argument? If the information should be on those articles, a merge close would keep the article until the merge has been performed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list/dataset is useful, but the data are available at reference number 2 in the article: spreadsheet download. I don't think Wikipedia needs to host a mirror of these data (WP:NOTDATABASE). Malinaccier (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. While I understand why we may want to cover this, I just don't see how this sort of thing would be best covered in a standalone article rather than within an article with broader scope. It is important to keep in mind that WP:NOPAGE notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Those seeking deletion have argued that the topic is purely WP:SPECULATIVE or a form of alternate history, or alternatively that this is an inappropriate CFORK. Those in favor of keeping seem to argue that the data itself is valuable in some way, and should be presented on Wikipedia. I think that the data is valuable in the context of elections, and also that presenting this in its own article is worse than including it in a larger page with more context, such as could be achieved by upmerging this to my proposed target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would consider merge an acceptable AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 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) 08:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rarri Dream

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable, secondary sources in relation to the subject aside from the Earmilk link, and contains original research with the ASCAP citation. joeyquism (talk page) 04:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited this article a couple of times it does include reliable primary and secondary sources though for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 so it passes WP:GNG Firstsail (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Firstsail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , — Firstsail (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Blakegrant1 (talk · contribs). [reply]
The editorial quality of nearly all of these websites is questionable, aside from AllHipHop, which is listen on WP:A/S. Even if they were considered reliable, subject fails WP:SIGCOV, seeing as his name had to be triangulated from ASCAP writer credits. joeyquism (talk page) 15:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I created this article because I am a fan of the artist/ subject he is clearly notable with multiple reliable sources I’ve got multiple other subjects included on to Wikipedia and I’ve never had this problem and if sources like Wonderland (magazine) and Notion (magazine) are not reliable then why do they have their own page and he has releases under indie label The Orchard (company) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegrant1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blakegrant1 Having a wiki page for a source doesn't necessarily equate to reliability (see Daily Mail). The contact/info pages for both of these sources do not explicitly offer any information on who's writing and fact-checking these pieces, so I cannot reasonably verify them (if you can find names attached to these sources and link a Muckrack page for them, I might consider withdrawing a little bit more). A lot of this article's important biographical content is unsourced, too (birthday and birthplace are notably not given any citations - a tweet from the artist himself would suffice in this case). I would say that the closest things to resembling decent sources are the AllHipHop article and these sources, which both pass WP:ABOUTSELF but ultimately don't count towards notability IMO; otherwise, I don't see anything that qualifies this for a wiki article. I'm sorry about this; if you have any questions or further concerns, let me know and I'll do my best to help you out a bit more. That being said, I'm still leaving this up here. joeyquism (talk page) 02:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 17:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this article fails WP:GNG. None of its sources seem reliable. AstridMitch (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2024

Keep: Editors seem to be bias and personal the nom first said that it falls under Fails WP:GNG. Then he said it fails WP:SIGCOV Then he said 2 of the articles were decent sources so i don't get how it doesn't pass WP:GNG if the nom himself said there are some reliabe resources seems undecided, also the nom didn't even transclude this Afd correctly at first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:960:27F0:2913:E0:D107:656A (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can envision this artist becoming notable at some point, but right now, the sources of significant coverage are simply too sparse. I looked myself and really, the only useful sources are a couple already here; there needs to be more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:45, 19 June 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. Thanks to participants who quickly responded and presented sources. I hope they find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I spent a little bit of time tonight cleaning up, updating references, adding a new reference to a 2016 article in Recoil (magazine). We need some help from a wordsmith to expand the text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [10], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonable coverage in books and news sources. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement here among editors on the quality of the sourcing in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as No consensus until I looked at the article and saw that only one source wasn't from the official website. Where are all of these independent sources editors arguing to Keep this article are referring to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it would be great if this article gets expanded, but meanwhile it passes content and sourcing, as is. Good starter article. — Maile (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Byrne, Susan, ed. (2003). Off the Beaten Path: A Travel Guide to More Than 1,000 Scenic and Interesting Places Still Uncrowded and Inviting. Pleasantville, New York: Reader's Digest. p. 207. ISBN 0-7621-0424-4. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Conceived in 1986 by four friends with a shared passion for historic military vehicles and who thrilled at driving their own vintage models in parades this museum has developed into a place to honor America's other veterans of the battlefront. It boasts a collection of more than 60 meticulously restored fighting machines, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Most vehicles have been acquired within a 150-mile radius of the museum. When tractors were in short supply in the 1940s and early 1950s, local farmers often relied on retired warriors rugged jeeps, trucks, and half-tracks to work their land. The Heartland's dedicated staff has rescued many from rust and oblivion, returning them to mint condition."
2. Garrison, Gretchen M. (2017). Detour Nebraska: Historic Destinations & Natural Wonders. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-62585-881-8. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Ever wondered what sitting in a tank would be like? This central Nebraska location encourages exploration of all vehicles on display. Besides tanks, helicopters, halftracks and even ambulances are on display. Jeeps from every branch of service are lined up. From World War II to present day, about one hundred restored vehicles are ready for action. Most are still operational. Military engines are also housed here."
3. Hammel, Paul (2007-06-14). "Museum shows how military goes rolling along" (pages 1 and 2). Omaha World-Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: " Such moments and memories are hallmarks of the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, a volunteer-run, admission-free facility off Interstate 80 at the Lexington exit. It displays military memorabilia, including more than 70 restored Jeeps, tanks and helicopters, to honor those who built and used the "Arsenal of Democracy." ... Lauby, 60, is among the three farmers and an attorney three of whom are Vietnam veterans who founded the museum in 1988. ... Most of the vehicles were found within a 150-mile radius of Lexington, but several were purchased through military surplus sales or donated by veterans. Over-the-road truckers and local railroads have donated services to haul the hulking machines. ... One of the museum's six Huey helicopters was shot down five times in Vietnam; another was a medical ambulance during Operation Desert Storm."
4. Duggan, Joe (1999-09-26). "Vehicles of history: Lexington farm boys establish museum". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "At the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, they've got Nebraska's largest private collection of military jeeps, ambulances, armored personnel carriers and Burma trucks. On the northeast corner of the Interstate 80 Lexington interchange, they've got about 60 restored military vehicles representing every armed conflict from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. ... What Nielsen referred to as a group of naive farm boys and ranchers incorporated as a nonprofit group, took out bank loans, raised money and built the first building on the site. They opened in 1993, but only in good weather. They put the word out that if the flag was up on the pole, the museum was open."
5. Ward, Malena (2005-04-30). "Lex museum depicts memorable Vietnam moment" (pages 1 and 2). Kearney Hub. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles was founded by Vietnam veterans, but it doesn't limit itself to that era. The museum is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of historical military equipment of all types. It is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 283 and the Lexington Interstate 80 interchange at exit 237."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 4 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!} 06:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history

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

The article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT as the topic itself should not be an encyclopedic article. A deletion discussion for a similar article has already passed a year ago and its conclusions are very good. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article title doesn't make sense and the content is likely not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. Some of the relevant content can be merged into LSU Tigers football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:GNG, is more "fan-related" details than content for this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 19 June 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. Star Mississippi 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwoTiime

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music. No charted songs or notable awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ([11] [12]) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ([20] [21] [22] [23] [24] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. C F A 💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. C F A 💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:31, 20 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) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little promo in an article is not a criteria for deletion except of blatant ones. I am sure of the articles presented per se from Complex. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:06, 29 June 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.

I expected that we would hear from the article creator but no argument to Keep here. Still do to low participation, I have to close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian colonisation of Khotan

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

Another messy pov ridden and non-notable article (WP:POVFORK) by User:Jonharojjashi, this time relying on legendary stories to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan, despite the WP:RS in the latter saying something completely else (that they were founded by Sakas). Wouldn't be surprised if Jonharojjashi had misused some of the WP:RS in this article as well, wouldn't be the first time [25]. Heck, Jonharojjashi is even citing William Bayne Fisher here, though has purposefully omitted the part where he states the Kingdom of Khotan was founded by Sakas,^[1] which is mentioned in the Kingdom of Khotan article.

Instead of obsessing over uncorroborated legends and create a whole article out of it, Jonharojjashi should perhaps look into the consensus in WP:RS instead of ignoring it (such as they did to the WP:RS in Kingdom of Khotan), such as this pretty relevant excerpt; "In the version of the Travels, it is the ministers of the son of King Aśoka (ca. 272-31 BCE) who fled India and founded Khotan, where the earth rose in the form of a breast. In the Life (Beal, 1888, p. 203) and in the Tibetan Prophecy of the Li (that is, Khotan) Country (Thomas, pt. 1, pp. 100 f.; Emmerick, 1967, pp. 19-21), it is the banished prince himself who, having been fed by the breast from the earth, later founded the kingdom. Although found in two independent sources, which shows that the story was widespread, it is a legend devised to claim a noble origin of the lineage and should not be confused with historical data (against this see Emmerick, 1979, p. 167; Idem, 1983, p. 263). No colonialization of Khotan by India in the 3rd century BCE is to be considered seriously." This is written by Hiroshi Kumamoto [26], an expert in Khotanese history (eg [27]).

I think this excerpt from Jonharojjashi's report [28] sums it up pretty well; "It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional." HistoryofIran (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At best, parts of the contents of the article could be added to an "alternative theories" section on the Kingdom of Khotan article. But as it contradicts reliable sources, it does not merit its own article.

^ Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The reference above should be attributed to its author rather than the series editors:
Gabain, A. von (1983). "Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521200929.021. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9.
Folly Mox (talk) 04:52, 14 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sylvia

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 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!} 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 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. I'm not convinced that the editors arguing to keep this article have a good understanding of NCORP and what is required. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homa (company)

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

Routine announcements only, not meeting NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic has been deleted previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Games. Hitro talk 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject. --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 4 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!} 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satsify WP:GNG for my liking and shouldn't be made by COI editor. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has coverage from sources that indicate notability - VentureBeat (considered reliable) and Techcrunch (likely reliable in this instance). It may need paring-down, no doubt, as some of the content referenced from less reliable sources may not meed the standard. WmLawson (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey WmLawson, neither the VentureBeat article (regurgitated company announcement on raising funding) nor either of the TechCrunch articles (both regurgitated funding announcements) meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, or am I missing something? Can you indicate which paragraphs in those articles contain "Independent Content" and I'll take another look, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there is no need for deletion for this article. It has coverage, and is a relatively notable company, I would not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk • contribs)

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxion (electronic musician)

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

Contested PROD. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ has an AllMusic staff written bio here and four staff written album reviews here, here, here and here. There is also coverage in XLR8R here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep moving to full keep after a full search which as well as the above mentioned sources found coverage in Exclaim here, Resident Advisor here, The Quitus here, and a Polish source here. I'm not familiar with the Polish source but the other coverage is in reliable sources so I believe WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep – it needs more refs but, given Atlantic306's success at finding some potential additions I'm pursuaded by the artist's discography. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 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 States of Guernsey#History. Not much to Merge but might be of interest Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral firsts in Guernsey

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to States of Guernsey#History – information is sourced and can reasonably be noted there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No room for "firsts" because it is trivial. Shankargb (talk) 01:28, 19 June 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!} 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morse (California attorney)

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

Not a notable person. Possible WP:BLP1E. I removed some scandalous content which was unsourced, but presumably mentioned in Larry J. Kolb's book. No other sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unsure if this is the same individual mentioned here in connection with the 1992 riots in LA [29]; regardless, it's a name drop. What's used in the article now is simply a biography of a working lawyer. I don't see notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two cites, one of which seems to be significant coverage, but limited to the beating in Mississippi (no kidnapping mentioned). There's also this which I can't find online.

Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October

22, 1964, p. 16. Oblivy (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [30], that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [31] and was connected to some of the named companies. I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer). None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability. All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long "where are they now" WP:SYNfest. And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inability to meet WP:BASIC, and probably WP:BLP1E as well. I was holding off to see if anyone found more sources, but I agree with @David Eppstein this is really a where-are-they-now article for somebody who even at the time was pretty obscure. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter

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

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Christianity, England, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canon Sunter was arguably the most important incumbent of St Paul's church (now repurposed), the third, and most central, Anglican church in Adelaide. His activities were regularly reported in Adelaide newspapers, rating over 1,000 mentions on Trove, and there may be more to find, as the illustration appears to be taken from an encyclopedia or church history. Doug butler (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked five times in the article. Doug butler (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Of the included sources, I find a bare minimum of two instances of WP:SIGCOV: the Advertiser obit and a Quiz and Lantern column. I didn't find any other SIGCOV in a cursory BEFORE search but the baseline for WP:GNG is "multiple" so I suppose this qualifies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is multiple reliable newspaper sources coverage such as the two mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: above discussion shows subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 18:10, 24 June 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.

[1] Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge of the Horns}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust Encyclopedia}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Sobovitz}}