Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CoconutOctopus (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 16 July 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 15 July 17 >

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll

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

This whole article is one long mess, which if you look at the talk page has been very contentious for years. It's heavily biased in many ways and doesn't appear to have any clear rules regarding what is actually included. It describes itself as a list of events with a "measurable drop in human population" yet also contains many events with as few as 40 deaths, and repeats itself at multiple points, such as listing "Various Fascist/Marxist leaders" as distinct events along with each major leader as a unique event. All in all this article is unnecessary, as it contains nothing that is not duplicated on other better articles such as List of wars by death toll. I fully believe WP:TNT applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is entirely WP:SYNTH, and redundant to such lists as List of wars by death toll that provide more detail than you can get from two numbers and their geometric mean (which is not properly justified by what I can acess from Ref. [1]). The list also improperly adds figures with varying precision as if they were exact. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with previous justification. Figures are arbitrary and calculations are via unvalidated means for the presentation of scholarly data. "Measurable drop" is vague. Any drop is measurable. Greyspeir (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.
If this AfD closes as delete, can the talk page and its subpages be preserved at this AfD's talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean up. This article is necessary to prove the point, what toxic species mankind is. Category with environmental casualties should be added. RobiH (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't here to "prove a point", certainly not a biased one such as that. The article isn't notable as a concept in itself and is purely a copy of parts of better existing articles. CoconutOctopus talk 09:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This article can be made into something sensible, but it needs a cleanup before it's in mainspace. Dege31 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The NLIST and NOTTRIVIA arguments have not been meaningfully rebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian prime ministerial firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. Along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going with your logic shouldn't we just delete List of Mexican presidential firsts, List of Philippine presidential firsts, and List of United States presidential firsts as well? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. BrigadierG (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then move them to articles for deletion as well. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a significant coverage about the Indian prime ministerial firsts. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you have in mind? signed, Rosguill talk 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just run a search and you'll find out. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed this article on your will.
You need to make sure you CITE YOUR SOURCES and make sure your English is professional and encyclopedic.
Thanks, GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hemant Dabral, I have specifically performed a WP:BEFORE as expected to when nominating this article. I did not find anything discussing the category of "Indian prime ministerial firsts" in depth, just examples of individual instances being described as a prime ministerial first. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I presume that the sources you are thinking of fall into the latter category, which is not enough to meet WP:LISTN. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to keep those few material related to individual instances and remove the rest, instead of deleting the whole article? Because this article has potential to be developed properly. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Purely going by the fact that List of United States presidential firsts exists and the article is on similar lines to that. Xoocit (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSE signed, Rosguill talk 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just comical straw man arguments you are giving, I dont know about Canada but an Indian prime minister's visit to Israel is significant enough to highlight, given the fact that previous governments had a policy to not recognise Israel in favour of their pro-Palestine policy. This was a significant shift in the foreign policy. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The List of Indian prime ministerial firsts fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. RangersRus (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the article, I feel there are several important and key facts that are noteworthy regarding Prime Ministers of India; however, I do see some uncited firsts listed and I feel the introductory paragraph is not Wikipedia based. Therefore, I would say keep the article, but make sure that the statements are not too specific, and as obvious, they are cited with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyFanNHL (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article originally was mine. But another user merged it and changed it on their will.

I suggest to restore my version of the article. I cited sourced, and made everything under Wikipedia Policies. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs)

Contrary to these assertions, the prior version of the article (I presume Special:PermaLink/1218109595 corresponds to the juncture GHDNA is referring to) does not address the failure to meet WP:LISTN. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Akinwunmi Richards

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

There are no enough reliable sources to establish WP:PRODUCER. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through that again but not this days like it’s been happening. Thanks for the word anyways. Corrected.--Gabriel (……?) 08:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Strong arguments presented by both sides, but after three weeks, no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Löschen 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. Looking at the sources provided by Dclemens above, this is an article reporting on residents complaints about a totally different company so I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article. This is about the rebranding and name change, totally relies on the company announcements and "launch", no in-depth "Independent Content". This, the third article from Modern Ghana is about the opening of new offices and what was said by the CEO at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, ending with a two sentence description about the company, not in-depth "Independent Content", fails NCORP. Finally, the GhanaWeb article has nothing to do with this company, again begging the question was this article actually read. I'm unable to locate any analyst reports containing sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet our criteria. Finally, more than one editor has used reasoning that WP:LISTED applies therefore it meets our notability criteria - except LISTED clearly says a listing doesn't mean the company is automatically notable - we still require sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing++ 19:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comments above, "I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article" and "again begging the question was this article actually read" per WP:AGF. I did indeed read the articles. They are not about a totally different company. The headline in Modern Ghana says: "Ayimensah-Kweiman residents bare teeth at Ken Ofori-Atta's Enterprise Group for snatching land to construct commercial cemetery, mortuary." Ofori-Atta was a director of the Enterprise Group until 2015, according to page 7 of the annual report on the website of the same Enterprise Group that is the subject of this AfD, thus, unless you believe ModernGhana to be an entirely unreliable source, the article is talking about the correct company. The GhanaWeb article also discusses allegations about the influence of the same Enterprise Group (see reference to Ofori-Atta starting in the sixth paragraph). I don't !vote in an AfD unless I have reviewed the sources and done a WP:BEFORE search, and it is not WP:CIVIL for an editor to accuse another of lying about reading the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct and I've withdrawn the comments which say the articles refer to a different company and any reference or implication that you may not have read the articles. I also accept that my comments were personal and entirely unnecessary and for that I apologise. In the interests of completeness, this does not mean that because those articles mention the company that they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The first article relating to the residents' protest is a mention in passing only which provides no information about the company. I would be interested to hear why you believe this meets the criteria, specifically, what content within that article is in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. Similarly with the GhanaWeb article, it mentions the company in passing, no other information, so I'm interested to understand what specific content makes you say it goes towards notability? HighKing++ 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the apology. Quick reply on the substance: Modern Ghana #1 has SIGCOV of the company for criticism of its development plans. (It may not look like it references the company but the story doesn't capitalize its name to make it as easily identifiable. There are several references to it and the protests are specifically against the company.) Modern Ghana #2 is an article about the company's rebranding, and rebranding is not excluded as "routine coverage" under WP:ORGTRIV. Unless it's a reprint of a press release or an interview, I'm not in the business of identifying how much independent reporting did or didn't go into it. It doesn't solely quote from the company's officials, though. Modern Ghana #3 might initially appear to be disqualified under ORGTRIV, but that only excludes routine coverage of "openings and closings of local branches, franchises and shops," and this is coverage of its corporate headquarters. The GhanaWeb piece is the weakest but it provides coverage of the role of Enterprise Group executives in influencing Ghanaian finance policy. YMMV, and I don't think your assessment is unreasonable, but I also think mine is reasonable based on the applicable criteria as discussed above. In borderline cases like this one I generally let the balance tip toward interpreting the sources to qualify rather than be excluded. (P.S. I'll be offline most of the rest of the week, at least away from my laptop, so won't be able to chime in further.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Bajtoš

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

Another long-unsourced stub regarding a Slovak men's footballer who played a total of 47 minutes before suddenly disappearing in 1999. SME might be the best reliable secondary source that mentions his name, but it's only in an image caption which does not count towards significant coverage. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:WhatLinksHere/International_Anarchist_Congresses showed the redirects and the sections they targeted. I cleaned up a bunch that should have been pointing to Anti-authoritarian International article sections. czar 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Per above, I think we can re-scope this into a list with a table and sources. Agreed that the First International congresses should be described as precursors rather than anarchist congresses. If the list doesn't shape into anything coherent, I think we can revisit deletion. czar 02:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firmex

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. since I'm reading the solitary participant's comments as an unbolded Keep. It's too bad this discussion didn't elicit more participation but things quiet down over the northern summer. Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Douglas Berardo

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

None of the sources here are ones I know to be reliable, and most appear to be small/local coverage. Nothing else here suggests an NBAND pass. One of his albums is already up for a separate AfD as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Depression is reliable source. It is a highly respected music magazine. MarySue Twohy is program director at Sirius XM. Folk Dj is a international organization with a radio station It's part of Folk Alliance International. I believe he meets the criteria for having a single on national music chart if you consider Folk Alliance International https://www.folkradio.org/ Currently his new record is currently #24 on this chart. Two of his vidoes for singles were reviewed by Americana Highways, another respectable music publication although they are not listed in this article. The festivals that he won or was finalist are national competitions Lyle Lovett and Nanci Griffith were finalists at Kerrville. Most of the other references such as who he performed with were added to support a statement as being true. I agree it needs to be updated, but I not deleted. Performer Research (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Folk Alliance International would be considered a valid chart as I would assume it falls under SINGLEVENDOR. No Depression should be reliable and Americana Highways is as far as I know (bit surprised to see neither listed at RSMUSIC), but it's still a bit limited. This could be turned around though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would also help if you could link to the Americana Highways articles and any others you bring up that aren't already present. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am not sure if FAI would be a single vendor. I am not quite understanding the definition. I am looking further into it. I am in the process of updating this page. It will take me a few days since it has not been updated in quite awhile. If there are other suggestions on making this page more compliant, I welcome them. Thank you. Performer Research (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus van der Vaart

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

Have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a businessperson, and not found independent, reliable sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Following PamD's edits, the page is a valid disambiguation page and the delete !votes do not actually refute the rationale for keeping. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Chocolate

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

There are no Wikipedia pages by this title to disambiguate. Gjs238 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, falling down a Wiki rabbit-hole, I've sourced Sidebottom's nickname and that is a valid dab page entry. PamD 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one entry could possibly be considered to be WP:PARTIAL, and that is now (much trimmed) a "see also". PamD 22:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations4u

Celebrations4u (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources mentioned in the article are part of regular brand promotions/ interviews/ PRs. No significant coverage from independent sources. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Vietnam Airlines. I've also put each continent into separate collapsible tables to avoid having a long article. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

Specifically this is a catalogue of the services of a company and as such is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company, the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings or Pizza Huts. Any information that is not simply run-of-the-mill is already included at the Vietnam Airlines article.

Other headings under WP:NOT that are failed include WP:NOTTRIVIA (since this is a listing of rapidly-changing temporary company services that can change on a scale of days/weeks), WP:IINFO (since this is an indiscriminate effort to provide a complete listing of all services offered by a company regardless of significance, instead of summarising them), WP:PROMO (since this is effectively an advert for the company's services based on sources controlled ultimately by the company), WP:NOR (since this is the compiling of a list of company services to state things not stated in the original sources - for example that services to Russia are terminated now because they were suspended in 2022, or that services to Tegel were previously operated when the source only says that Tegel is now shut, and more broadly that all of these services are operating now when the sources are only true for the date they were published), WP:NOTGUIDE (since this is effectively a travel guide), WP:NOTNEWS (since this appears to be an attempt to create a list of up-to-the-minute services offered by the company), and WP:CRYSTAL (since nearly every announcement used discusses plans to start doing something in the future, and since dates in the future are included - for example announcements for October 2024).

WP:NCORP is also failed. Most of the listings here are unsourced, and realistically cannot be sourced from anywhere but the company website, press-releases, company spokespeople, or other sources controlled by the company, meaning that it automatically fails WP:ORGIND, because this information cannot be obtained from a source independent of the company.

That this is true can be seen from the sources provided in the article. Going through these one-by-one we get:

  1. The Vietnam Airlines website
  2. A Saigon Times article about a government announcement about restructuring of the airline that does not mention any destinations
  3. A profile in industry-press based entirely on information from the airline
  4. The Vietnam Airlines website
  5. An industry-press article based on a company press-release
  6. A local news story based on a company press-release
  7. A link to the Berlin airport website saying that Tegel airport has been shut down - the conclusion that Vietnam airlines ever flew here is not supported and basically OR
  8. An announcement about future plans in industry press, with comments from the CEO of Munich airport who are obviously also not independent of the airline as they are a business-partner of theirs
  9. An announcement in government-controlled press about flights to India, since Vietnam Airlines is state-owned and managed by a board appointed by the government this is not independent
  10. Announcements from the company about future plans relayed via Aeroroutes, which is a blog/industry press, and also not significant coverage since it so short
  11. Another Aeroroutes link regarding future plans
  12. A short Reuters piece about flights to Moscow being suspended in 2022 based on an announcement in Vietnamese state-owned press - not significant coverage of the topic of the destinations since it is so short and is anyway not reliably and independently sourced. Additionally this does not support the statement that flights are terminated now in 2024 so this is OR.
  13. Another brief Aeroroutes link about future plans
  14. A Condé Nast travel-magazine article based on a statement from the Vietnam Airlines CEO. Whilst other sources are also quoted in the article, all of these sources ultimately track back to Vietnam Airlines - the Airline Geeks article (industry press/blog) is sourced to a company press release, the Vietnam+ article is sourced to statements by the CEO, the Twitter source is from Vietnam Airlines Twitter account. There is no independent reporting here.

As a list split from a larger article, this still needs to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but it clearly does not since it fails the relevant notability guide for company products and services (WP:NCORP). FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the numerous WP:NOT violations listed by nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You're making things up:
    • WP:NOTCATALOG says we are not "A resource for conducting business" with significant context and other examples indicating that products and services shouldn't be listed as a way to sell them. This is not a catalogue with the time of day these flights depart and what planes they use. To suggest we cannot provide a list like this with an overly broad reading of that would call for the deletion of all of Category:Lists of products.
    • WP:NOTTRIVIA says nothing about "temporary services". Where an airline flies is not "rapidly-changing". Sure it can change, but it's not that frequent or difficult to understand. We do not have any prohibition on content that can change or be updated, and that's the beauty of a wiki that we can do so. Articles are not expected to be static. As I say below, there may be possibilities for reform rather than complete deletion.
    • This is not indiscriminate. It's clearly defined as places the airline flies or has flown. It's not overly broad or difficult to define.
    • It's not an advertisement and it's patently ridiculous to call this promotional. It's perfectly appropriate to provide a straightforward list of a company's services. Is it a promotional advertisement to list a movie studio's films, a gaming company's products, a brand's flavors, or a train's routes?
    • This is not original research. Indeed, it's poorly sourced, but it's not full of things for which sources are impossible to find or that reach a synthesized conclusion. Sure, the citations for Russia is bad, but this and this are substantive articles about about the flights between Vietnam and Russia, including Vietnam Airlines' route.
    • This is not a travel guide any more than List of Amtrak routes is a travel guide. It does not tell people about how to contact the company or to make a booking, describe the costs and the airline's booking structures, review the seats and flying experience, or give what time of day the flights leave. It's misguided and undercuts your argument to call a simple list of destinations a travel guide.
    • This is not news. It's not original reporting, a routine report about an event only relevant the day it happened or written in news style, or a who's who. This is not something that changes day-in, day-out. It is not "up-to-the-minute" any more than List of Amtrak routes. Hey, the Chicago – St. Paul route just opened on May 21, is this bad to be "up-to-the-minute"? Why would it be a bad thing to be current? This is not something changing so much that editors are unable to keep up and have let it fester with outdated content either. Being cited to news is standard and does not make the list itself news.
    • This is not a crystal ball. It is not forbidden to describe something planned for the future. Saying the route is scheduled to start in October is neither speculation, a rumor, a presumption, nor a prediction. It is easily verifiable, and it's embarassing and weakens your argument to say the article must be deleted because it states a simple, sourced statement about something planned.
    • NCORP is not relevant. Vietnam Airlines is a notable corporation and this is about them and what they do, and this is an appropriate subarticle of the main topic. Being unsourced or poorly sourced is a cleanup issue, not necessarily grounds for deletion.
    • You make the poor comparison to listing Burger King locations. No, we don't need to list the 19,000 stores they have, but we do have Burger King products and List of Burger King products. Selling the products is the service they provide, and taking passengers to these airports is the service Vietnam Airlines provides. Maybe a simple table like this isn't the best way to present the information, but it's not inherently disallowed to have this content.
I agree there are issues with these lists, namely that they list destinations rather than routes. It could be more informative to say that they operate routes from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to Sydney, and between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok, rather than simply that Sydney and Bangkok are destinations. There are other ways this could be restructured or merged, which is why the proposed RFC could be helpful, but I do not believe this violates NOT whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of Amtrak routes is a bad comparison - those are railway routes requiring permanent infrastructure to be built and maintained. An airline can schedule and re-scheduled from day to day and as such are ephemeral trivia.
NCORP is entirely relevant since it applies to goods and services of companies just as much as it does to companies (it literally says this in the first line: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service"). The goods and services of a company do not inherit the notability of their parent company per WP:INHERIT, and a split-list has to has stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Every single source comes ultimately from the company itself which is exactly what WP:ORGIND is there to prevent.
Obviously I disagree with you other points but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on them, suffice it to say that a list of all the services of a company obviously falls in to what WP:CATALOG no.6 tells us not to include ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and reading WP:NOT any other way requires reading it to meaning something opposite to what it clearly states.
The examples you cite have a very straight-forward rejoinder: "What about X?".
I don't get how you can repeatedly admit that this is badly-sourced, not produce any examples of independent, 3rd-party coverage to fix that (Aviationweek is industry press and their article is based on a press-release, the VN Express article is also based on a press-release, and anyway only mentions the airline briefly), and then still conclude that the article should be kept. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because air routes can be rescheduled doesn't mean they are actually from day to day. Many international routes require regulatory approval, and it's not insignificant for a destination to be served as routes are important for business and tourist connectivity beyond just being a product on the shelves. Calling this "ephemeral" is nonsense. Amtrak does not even maintain most of its own track infrastructure, and it can also change what routes it provides and stations it stops at; how about List of Metrobus routes in Washington, D.C.? Again, editors are perfectly capable of tracking this because it does not in fact change on a daily basis. Flight frequency and timing details are more ephemeral, but we're not saying which routes are daily or biweekly.
If you don't think the split list has stand-alone notability, then I would recommend a merge and possible restructure. But I don't think this content needs to be separately notable when Vietnam Airlines is already notable and this is complimentary. It's disingenuous to dismiss sources that say "X airline flies to Y airport" – a very straighforward fact – as not being independent because the airline has also stated this, particularly if you're connecting anything from government-owned news to the airline.
Again, this is obviously not "A resource for conducting business" and it's ridiculous to suggest something this general without details about the flights themselves or the cabin experience is a forbidden catalogue; the airline is not using this to sell tickets. You are taking this out of context and reading this the opposite way, because it's no more forbidden to say "Vietnam Airlines flies passengers to Tokyo and San Francisco" than it is to say "Apple sells iPhones and MacBooks".
Some other sources include [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I didn't search in Vietnamese. Reywas92Talk 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any significant coverage of the topic of a List of Vietnam Airlines destinations from a source that would meet WP:ORGIND in those articles. The SMH article mentions the destinations of Vietnam Airlines exactly once, in a quote from a travel agent (“I’ve been able to find great prices with Vietnam Airlines into Paris or Frankfurt going via Ho Chi Minh City, so clients have opted to take a three or four night stopovers in Vietnam after holidaying in Europe.”). The Vietnam Investment Review piece is industry press based on a company statement. OAG is industry press and the piece doesn't even mention ANY destinations of Vietnam Airlines. I'm not bothering to go through the others here because it looks like a WP:REFBOMB - can you please say which of these you think is actually significant coverage of the specific topic under discussion here? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:
–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;
–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely agree with everything Reywas92 has posted here. I understand "per X" AfD !votes are frowned upon, but that was comprehensive enough that I don't really have anything else additional to add. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the current destinations, this is essentially Vietnam Airlines' route map converted into a list. Our job is not to store schedule data that's already available on other websites like the airline's or FlightConnections.com. In addition listing every terminated destination runs contrary to WP:IINFO. 'Indiscriminate' can be defined as "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." In my view there is no careful judgment involved in creating a list of every single place that Vietnam Airlines has flown to in its 70-year history. I don't see the need to record that the carrier at one point flew to some random city that appears on its route map from 1964. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Currently, those arguing keep point to extensive coverage of the topic in various sources. Those arguing to delete or redirect the article criticize the reliability and independence of some of these sources. It does not seem that there is clear consensus right now as to whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines. There is a solid push to redirect and/or merge the article, but again there does not seem to be a clear consensus to do so. I am skeptical that time will result in more clarity, so I am closing this discussion for now. Given the article's deletion and recreation history, I will not be surprised to see a fourth AfD in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to Centaurs in popular culture (or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons), or merge as compromise. Several sources do not meet our WP:RS standards, and in total they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the editors who are striving for WP:CONSENSUS by suggesting more than one !vote preference. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SIGCOV is present, merging is impossible at this point due to the size of the article. Agree with @Jclemens basing on this essay. Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [16] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
    The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally in the basic description of Valnet sources in the section (The paragraph above the individual cells). There's case by case uses per each source's use clause (Namely TheGamer being considered reliable and stuff like Android Police and MakeUseOf being considered generally unreliable in all use cases) but most sources that fall into the marginally reliable category tend to fall under the umbrella description I quoted above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Jobs

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

No notability, fails NCORP, promo. Sources are not reliable. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously corporate promotion, possibly using paid news? Dazzling4 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPACK Prefab

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

Promotional company page, fails WP:NCORP. Trivial sources only. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the IP Address's comment is posted by nominator see the tone. But The Hindu considered is reliable source in the discussion. Please check WP:THEHINDU. The other media mentions which are also significant. La Kruse (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Adyeri Omalla

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

not notable per WP ANYBIO guidelines. Possible original research and WP Resume. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aave Protocol

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

Not notable per sources' evaluation. Some sources are crypto-related websites. Bloomberg and TechCrunch coverage does not fulfill WP requirements. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayate Usui

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a martial artist, and added two references, though one is a passing mention. I do not think Usui meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMMA. Tacyarg (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Girard

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:NAUTHOR. Most sources were either WP:INTERVIEWS or simply do not establish notability. Did not find any independent reliable sources. The article itself is very promotional, and was majorly written by individuals using SPAs with a COI that are closely tied to the subject. If article is kept, it will need a major rewrite. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:author "played a major tole in co-creatiing a significant or well known work...such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There is a plethora of work from the BBC, CNN, and other websites that use or talk about the African Samurai book alone. Likewise, he has won awards for his other works. He has also received media attention for his work overall Chrhns (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His work may be notable, that does not mean he is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. Given that his work with Lockley, controversial as it is in both sides of the Pacific at the moment, is known enough to establish notability as authors of such work, so I suggest we keep this and Thomas Lockley. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many Japanes people are aware of the many criticisms of Thomas Lockley regarding academic dishonesty in writing the book "Samurai."
    Namely, when he edited the Wikipedia article "Yasuke" with the account tottoritom, he committed a violation (WP:circular) at Wikipedia and at Nihon University, where he works(check one of the references). Perhaps because of this, he has now deleted all his SNS data and is quietly hiding.
    Even if he wants to erase his co-authorship due to this dishonesty, I think it should remain as a negative record. Steve Miwa3 (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Author, a creative person is notable if any of several criteria are met, including having "won significant critical attention." Girard easily meets this criteria. SouthernNights (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Los Angeles County shootings

2024 Los Angeles County shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This shooting does not appear to have drawn any sustained coverage outside of local routine coverage. Fails WP:NEVENT, particularly WP:LASTING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the fact that because this happened in the United States events like these are quickly removed from the news cycle. Raskuly (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For exactly that reason events like these are not automatically notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider doing this to other articles on the List of mass shootings in the United States article then since this article's deletion seems inevitable at this point right after you had my other article deleted. Raskuly (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree, it never got national coverage, and so fails WP:NEVENT Carson004 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with Carson004. The shootings also didn't get much local/state coverage as much as other shootings in California, and therefore again, fails WP:NEVENT.

Rippling4472 (talk) 00:50, 20 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 List of schools in Selangor. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK TTDI Jaya

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG.) The school already has an article in Malay Wikipedia so an English one would be unnecessary. N niyaz (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Selangor. N niyaz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph James Nantomah

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

Life coach, serial entrepreneur, but I don't see any significant independent coverage. The only articles I see are praising the guy's amazing skills in his voice. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These three sources are not included in the article. Best, Reading Beans 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen We have independent coverage requirements to pass notability, and I don't see it on these sources. The links in the article, as well as the additional links suggested by @Reading Beans do read as if they were pulled by a self-penned biography package. If you look at the PM News article from a certain angle it looks like independent reporting, possibly just paraphrasing/rewriting but more of an editorial effort. Oblivy (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy, I usually and always disapprove of badgering of !votes but what is the proof of the non-independency of these sources? The tone? I just want to naively believe that it’s the tone. But is it? Best, Reading Beans 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the way the articles just say things about him, often things that only he would know or which would be difficult to track down. And doing so without any of the the curiosity or skepticism or contextualization one might expect from an independent journalistic exercise. Oblivy (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound WP:OR but there are a lot, I mean, a lot interviews out there. Do you prefer I cite interviews (which I think is where these informations were actually gotten)? As I said earlier, we always make a mistake of judging sources from Africa with Western standards. Best, Reading Beans 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the information, I am from Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have other sources that qualify for WP:GNG feel free to add them or cite them here. I had a look at each of the existing sources, plus the ones you selected above, and made my vote based on what I saw - a bunch of puff pieces and an article announcing he got an honorary degree from an unaccredited college. This has nothing to do with misapplying Western standards. Oblivy (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sometimes we follow the content of the article, which most often appears promotional though can be cleaned easily. Others will leave WP:GNG, and rush to additional criteria that can presume notability. However, this context presents a good narrative of the subject. It's also unfortunate that this generation will neglect someone being a migration officer (formed word) or copy writer, but in the olden days, we see people being that and still appear on sources like the current generation. No matter the promotional (which I don't seem to find) contents in he article, it doesn't depict the fact of being notable, or treated in multiple independent sources. I first was following the discussion especially when it found this article by Vanguard as a well written non advertorial source, and it prompted me reading others. Here is my conclusion, the three Nigerian sources are all reliable per WP:NGRS, and is very satisfiable for WP:GNG. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, including the ones posted here by RB. The article meets WP:GNG, and sources are fine from here. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have very divergent opinions on the adequacy of sources on this subject. Before closing this as No consensus, I'll try one more relisting to see if we can iron out the differences in assessment of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar: Reason for notability seems unclear in the article. Additionally, the sources are questionable in my mind. For example, the first source has a banner asking people to join their Whatsapp group and the third and fourth sources have links to their Whatsapp group. The The third and fourth sources also link to the same website, tribuneonlineng.com. The method of contacting pmnewsnigeria.com, the second source, is a Google Form, which seems unprofessional for an independent news site. Ternera (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think Nigerian national dailies should not be cited, you should state so. Most news outlets do this in Nigeria (as a way of driving traffic) but this does not affect their editorial policy. If you have any issues save for this, please, let me know. Best, Reading Beans 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The group even doesn't allow anybody except admins post anything. Likewise the subscription of newspapers in Europe and America, that's a good way for Nigerian sources that doesn't seek subscription. Haven't I seen such in American newspapers even? Welp, those doesn't affect the contents published by the newspaper—editorial policy like Reading Beans said. We look at the established reliable source, and how independent the content they published seems to look. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ternera I will understand why you’re a bit confused here. How or where newspapers choose to be contacted from or whether a newspaper has a link to their WhatsApp channel is not in any way unprofessional. These publications can choose to put links to any of their social media, it is all part of their social media marketing strategies. All these,
    you just mentioned, do not count in determining whether a source or piece is reliable, that’s not what you look at. Don’t be distracted by whether they have links to their WhatsApp channel or not or if they decide to use google forms for contact. FUN FACT: A lot of websites integrate google forms backend for their contacts page, that is not in any way unprofessional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Russia

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

Hopelessly indiscriminate/random/subjective collection: here says they found 380 thousand different surnames in Russia, of which core of 14 thousand surnames are used by 70% of the population... And with a misleading title: it lists only east slavic surnames, while there are plethora non-slavic people in Russia from the times of Russian Empire and Soviet Union: not a single surname ending in -shvili and only one ending in -dze, no one ending in -yan/-ian i.e., Georgian surnames and Armenian surnames are thoroughly not represented. In is poorly maintained: I removed a couple obviously hoax (OK, mayby typos by nonslavic editors; AGF to them). Even slavic surnames are far from being complete: I immediately failed to find the surnames of my favorite writers: Ilf, Strugatsky, Nabokov Akunin, Zoshchenko, Bulychev, as well as other well known surnames Schmidt/Shmidt, Goldfarb, no Zeitlin/Tseitlin/Tseytlin, good thing there is Abramovich :-) ; there are Tkachenko and Tkachyov, but no Tkachuk. For some reason there are both Pelevin and Pelyovin listed, but there are hundreds of other e/yo spelling variants missing ..... And so on, and so for. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Council

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

WP:NORG and WP:ORGIND fail. If a suitable target can be found, it could be re-directed as suggested for WP:BRANCH, although this article certainly does not merit standalone Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with OP.
Axad12 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Folio

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

May not meet WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:GNG. Unable to find significant coverage of the publication. Article is supported by sole subject's About us page at the time of nomination. Article was dratified and then subsequently moved back to mainspace by the article creator. – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Syrovatko

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

Does not meet verifiability guidelines per WP:SPORTSPERSON. 333fortheain (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to add more information and sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV, it’s easy to find reliable secondary sources in Russian that talk about his career and personal life [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Tau Corvi (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks in sources and in any information. The sources i found, including the ones presented by @Tau Corvi (Thank you for providing those) are, in my opinion, not enough to prove notability as per WP:SPORTCRIT - those are just narration of transfers, some tabloid coverage and game results. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Pillarella

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus with no involvement from the community after two relistings. The keep !vote imply there are sources present that can be incorporated into the article, instead of AfD. Currently, there is no clear consensus for a delete or a merge. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divedapper

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

Draftification was undone so I'm bringing it to AfD. Both the sources used in the article and the sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder, with no sign of independent notability. In particular, WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources. I suggest a Merge or Redirect to Kaveh Akbar as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and United States of America. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not correct that "sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder." Only three out of the eight sources are, and those are interviews with NPR, The Indianapolis Star, and a student newspaper of Butler University, each focused on a festival organized by Divedapper.
    It is also incorrect that "WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources." In fact, all of the sources used are independent and third-party sources. None run afoul of WP:NIS. For them to be "primary sources," that would indicate that Divedapper owns or has financial or legal interests or ties to these sources. Nothing I find in my research suggests so.
    Can the page Divedapper be improved upon? Absolutely. As can any other page. What has no basis in facts is the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
    If it does fail to meet any criteria, one would expect a proper notification to that effect. Instead, Broc commented out the magazine's logo and did not state that he did so in the Edit Summary, which I found suspect and led me to conclude some bad faith at work. I took a look at their Talk page and found that they had used such "unorthodox" --- their own words --- methods before and a User had complained about it. In that case, Broc moved an article to AfD; but when there was no consensus, Broc voted "Keep," and then draftified the article. A User described the move as "misleading." In response, Broc wrote: "I understand I might have bent the rules of the process a bit." If all editors bent Wikipedia rules at will, then the purpose of the site is defeated.
    "Misleading" and "bending the rules of the process a bit" are descriptions I'd use for Broc as it concerns Divedapper. I'd very much prefer for things to be done in the right manner. I'd say "Keep." LityNerdyNerd (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Ilinski

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

Fails WP:BIO. Despite looking like a lot of sources, 16 of the 32 sources are simply scientific articles by the subject. Google news comes up with 1 hit. And the company he founded Fusion Asset Management is up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article (and possibly edit or amend)
I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Kirill Ilinski for the following reasons:
1. Significant Academic Contributions:
  • Kirill Ilinski has authored over 40 scientific articles in the field of quantitative finance, which have been cited by numerous peers, showcasing his influence and recognition within the academic community.
  • He has written two notable books, one of which was nominated as the best business book by PWC, underscoring the importance and recognition of his work in the business community.
2. Notable Industry Presence:
  • Ilinski regularly speaks at prominent industry conferences and events, indicating his role as a thought leader in his field. His lectures at St. Petersburg European University are among the most viewed on Lektorium.tv, demonstrating his impact on education and knowledge dissemination.
3. Research on Climate Adaptation:
  • Ilinski's ongoing research on climate adaptation, which is not yet public, holds potential for significant contributions to how governments can prepare for climate change. His recent co-authored paper, "TOWARDS THE THEORY OF FIRM'S ESG TRANSFORMATION: ESG READINESS," has been listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list, further validating his active and impactful research contributions.
4. Media References and Coverage:
  • While Google News may show limited hits, a comprehensive search on Google reveals multiple references and articles in reputable sources such as the Financial Times, Hedge Fund Journal, Bloomberg, Hedgeweek etc. (as well as events where he participated as a speaker). These publications highlight his professional achievements and contributions to the finance industry.
5. Independent Sources:
  • There are number of independent references that establish Ilinski's notability. For example, coverage in renowned financial publications and his academic contributions cited by other researchers demonstrate independent recognition of his work
If certain sections of the article do not comply with Wikipedia's policies, they can be revised or updated to meet the guidelines. Deleting the article would be an extreme measure, especially considering the potential for improvement and the significant content that does meet Wikipedia's standards. Constructive feedback and specific suggestions for improvement would be appreciated, rather than opting for deletion, which would not only undermine the comprehensive representation of his work but also limit the availability of valuable information to the public.
Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.
The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this is a commercially motivated attack. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Tarasrybak888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Tarasrybak888: Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regularly speaking at conferences at events is a humdrum part of an academic's job. By itself, that means nothing. View counts for videos aren't a meaningful criterion either. "Ongoing research on climate adaptation" that is "not yet public" contributes absolutely nothing to notability.
Moreover, the fact that an article has existed for years is not an argument to keep it. Sometimes, articles avoid getting nominated for deletion simply because nobody noticed them. Outright hoaxes have persisted for as long as 19 years, but we still delete them when we discover them. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen Fails WP:PROF, and there isn't enough in financial news or other sources to support a pass by another criterion (passing mentions of the "so-and-so said a thing" type can't be the foundation of a biography). Some of his publications could potentially be cited in an article about attempts to apply physics ideas to finance/economics, but we don't have grounds for a biographical page here. XOR'easter (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, citations to preprints that sat on the arXiv without ever getting published in peer-reviewed journals are seldom acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herald Froy

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

Invalid DAB: (1) two items only (2) none of potential targets defines it - Altenmann >talk 04:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Closing this as Keep now that Delete votes have been struck. If a nominator withdrawns their nomination, we can't automatically close an AFD discussion if some editors are arguing for a deletion. It has to be closed as a regular AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Marie

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

Another bad, short compound given name list created by banned editor Neelix. The two articles, contrary to what it lists, are actually titled Julie Vinter Hansen and Julie Berman. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping User:Geschichte and User:Walsh90210 if they'd like to reconsider their vote. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The only two entries are both hyphenated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this nomination has been withdrawn but there is still an argument to Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEFR companion volume

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and is poorly written. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava New Generation-Day FM Festival

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

Not a notable music festival. Appears to have been a one-night, one-off event. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. but this article needs to be improved. I hope some editors take it on as a project. If you believe content should be merge, please discuss it on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue in writing

Dialogue in writing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

This article is basically a textbook entry providing tips on writing dialogue for fiction. I believe it violates Wikipedia's "Not a Textbook" guideline. [30]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Goose Loony (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was much better in 2007: Special:Permalink/124811521 but it was girdled by WP:V and WP:NOTHOWTO concerns. I also think User:Anita5192's new Dialogue in writing § Punctuation section might be a partial duplicate of English punctuation, and should be merged. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to William Callahan (with anyone welcome to move the page history as discussed below). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Callahan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not all senior government officials are notable enough to justify a WP article. Mentions of Callahan in WP:RS are WP:TRIVIAL related to his WP:ROUTINE job duties and not WP:SIGCOV focused on Callahan that would establish his notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: These suggested ATD instructions are too complicated. I was going to close this as Delete because they are confusing but decided to relist instead. Just state what you want to happen with THIS article not other articles. And if you want this article Moved, then "vote" to Keep and later editors can discuss a page move after this AFD is closed. AFD has a limited number of closure options, please make your argument from among them: Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 29 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! 07:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MagicTracer

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

This piece of paid software does not meet the WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NSOFT either, although that is just an essay. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Please add new sources to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skwatta Kamp

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography or chart activity, while their "numerous awards" mentioned in article include only two regional ones. Article has been a poorly-sourced stub since its 2015 creation, and searches turn up the usual niche sites (YouTube, Bandcamp, Genius, et al.) or stories about member deaths. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 00:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 29 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ainer Cleve

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 (Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.")

I created the article in 2020 when the old WP:NGRIDIRON presumed notability for NFL players -- we have database sources showing that Cleve appeared in 19 NFL games as a back and end from 1921-1924. When the presumption was reversed, User:Hey man im josh correctly tagged the article due to the need for additional sources. I thought that someone who appeared in 19 NFL games would have WP:SIGCOV, but my follow-up searches in 2022 didn't find any. I searched again today but didn't find anything rising to the level of SIGCOV. (FWIW: I did find some passing references where his given name was listed as "Ainar" [38] and others as "Einar" [39] [40].)

Despite my efforts, the article still does not comply with our guidelines, so it's time for me to throw in the towel -- unless someone can dig up SIGCOV that I've been unable to find. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newspapers.com is unavailable and will continue to be unavailable for the vast majority of users (including me) for an unknown amount of time. Could we at the very least draftify this? I can't even search for sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that. Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per nom and Beanie’s comments above. Beanie and Cbl62 both have a reputation of working very hard to find coverage of lesser-known topics if it’s available, so if either (or both) of them are interested, this is a very reasonable ATD. Worst case is there is no coverage available when newspapers.com is back online and the draft gets abandoned/deleted. Frank Anchor 02:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Finding sources about Ainer Cleve that meet WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG is proving difficult. This approach would allow more time for research to prove that Cleve is notable (which is better than removing the content from the platform).--AstridMitch (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Searching newspapers.com and the LOC, I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources in the article are stats databases, and all I could find after trying multiple searches with different spellings was passing mentions such as [[41]] and [[42]]. Draftify as a WP:ATD to allow for interested editors to find more time to find significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to India–Taiwan relations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in Chennai

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

Fails WP:ORG. 4 of the 5 sources are primary. Previous AfD was consensus for merge but the article has been recreated. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_16&oldid=1234856191"