Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 28 (Thu) May 27 (Wed) May 26 (Tue) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

More information < December 16, December 18 > ...

< December 16	December 18 >

Close

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. No response or objection has been raised to the sources presented by Dclemens1971 in the six days since he published them here. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church

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

Not sure why this minor group of nuns has it's own article but I cannot find secondary sources covering them. My searches turn up more information on a Ugandan group with the same name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV of this order in the independent Catholic outlets National Catholic Reporter, Catholic World Report and National Catholic Register, as well as in the Spokane Spokesman-Review (here and here. It passes WP:GNG. (As for the identically named orders in Uganda and Ghana, if someone gets around to creating pages for them, we can move this article and use the current title for disambiguation.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hassan Palang

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD was declined, citing potential coverage in Arabic sources; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 22:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. All I found were transactional announcements like 1 and 2 and squad listings like 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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!} 07:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sandkorn-Theater

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

Created in 2011 as a translation from German wikipedia, hasn't expanded since 13 years. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Just because it hasn't expanded doesn't mean it's not notable - unfortunately the German wikipedia only has one source so there'll have to be a source search done. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia article has no sources; it has a link to the theater's homepage only. Searching for reliable sources will be hard because it's a semiprofessional theater only, and most mentions will be in guidebooks that list just any other location in the city too, meaning they're no indicator of notability. 13 years and still less information in this article than on Maps shows how notable this location is.

The reason this article is still live on the German Wikipedia is because there, notability is not based on independent coverage. By the way, there are actually three theaters in this building, and there is no reason to prefer one over the other, so rename this article or create articles for the other two theaters too?

I tend to soft delete or at least draftify. While WP:Deletion is not cleanup and I don't want to exclude the possibility that the theater has notability, Wikipedia's reputation is based on articles with reliable information; in this form, the article should never have existed. Killarnee (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't find that to be the case with a source search - there's multiple mentions in both Google Books and Google Scholar, though nothing which instantly tells me that it is clearly notable. I'm not sure it is notable independently of the complex where the two other theatres exist, but I think there's a chance it is notable if someone wants to adopt it. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It's in the nature of businesses like theaters that there is something published, because publicity is important for this branch. But do the sources you found just mention the theater or are they about the theater itself? Killarnee (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
My German isn't very good - that's why I mentioned that I didn't see anything that was a clear pass, just mentions, but it has been mentioned more than other articles I've occasionally come across at Afd. SportingFlyer T·C 07:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Not even a stub. If anyone really wants to write an article about this in the future, let them do some research and write it. Nothing would be lost by deleting this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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 ESPN Megacast#Funday Football. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The Simpsons Funday Football

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

One-off program lacking in non-routine coverage. Could redirect or merge to Monday Night Football#2024 summary as an WP:ATD. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge: to the Monday Night Football article. It's gotten about as much coverage as the Toy Story version (that was quickly forgotten), this would likely be headed in the same direction. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to ~~Monday Night Football#2024 summary~~ESPN Megacast#Funday Football. A single line explaining how it went is fine enough. I'd also be open to eventually having a list of these types of >games, List of animated NFL games or similar. Conyo14 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Not surprised to see this nomination, but I don't think we're going to see a delete here since trying to get a Simpsons subject matter article removed/redirected...well, I think we all know how hard that is (see how we're still trying to get action on two-review sourced Family Guy episode articles from seasons ago even now). We really need to create an article that sums up NFL alternate broadcasts (including the Nickelodeon versions) that will properly catalog them in an appropriate way. Placing this in the MNF article as a sentence I don't think is an elegant solution (the Toy Story broadcast was a one-off of an international NFL game on Sunday morning while this was clearly upfront much more). Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
To me I think it’s best to merge with Manningcast since it’s considered as a MNF alternative broadcast) since we can just make another paragraph in listing and mentioning both the Toy Story and Simpsons funday football there Hoopstercat (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Does it have anything to do with Manningcast though? SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
No, it is not part of the Manningcast. Such content is on ESPN Megacast#Funday Football instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge worth mentioning somewhere here, but it's new and currently falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT at this time. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Just noting that I think the better target would be the appropriate section of the ESPN Megacast article, which it seems more relevant to than the general MNF page. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to ESPN Megacast#Funday Football instead. Editors are welcome to improve that article. In any case, we should treat the concept of ESPN Megacasts/alternative broadcasts as a series that does not merit standalone articles to individual episodes/broadcasts. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge per the above Andre🚐 03:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Which one? There are two targets being suggested. Conyo14 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to either target, I slightly prefer ESPN Megacast#Funday Football. The important thing is that this separate article is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge per many users above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have even numbers for two different Redirect/Merge target articles so I'm relisting to try to determine which would be preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment, after reviewing this I also agree that ESPN Megacast#Funday Football is probably a slightly better merge target than my previous proposal. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
That also seems the best merge target to me. SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. Conyo14 (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge with ESPN Megacast#Funday Football: Not enough lasting coverage for this to have a standalone article. Merge any info not already in the parent article as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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 00:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Division of City Schools–Valenzuela

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

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. Most just show passing mention, or do not even mention the subject of the article at all. For example, this is about mayor Win Gatchalian address... we don't usually create articles about an address of a mayor. Other refs are WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Calling the attention of the participants of the original AFD (Hariboneagle927 and AstrooKai). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete this article. The division is not notable. Some of the schools that have their articles are already listed or under Category:Schools in Valenzuela, Metro Manila so I'm not sure if the tons of other non-notable schools can be merged to List of schools in Metro Manila because I think it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (this article seems to be listing all of the schools in Valenzuela). I guess a stand-alone list can be created to accommodate some of the schools listed here based on WP:LSC?AstrooKai (Talk) 00:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Previous AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schools Division Office of Taguig City and Pateros, so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Diego Garcia (footballer, born 1997)

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

This player went from Maia, Portugal to Italy just like Bruno Fernandes but that's where the similarity ends. Played four substitute games (67 minutes) in Italian third tier, then disappears off the radar for eight years until he's playing in Spain's fifth tier. I know it's not a reliable source for an article, but it is completionist, and Transfermarkt indicates in that time he was playing at extremely low levels in Italy, Spain and Croatia. I know that mainstays and top scorers in Serie C will have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, but it's hard to apply that to someone whose peak was at this relatively low level for just 67 minutes. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This player is a small albeit very important island in the Indian Ocean. Apart from that, I can't find anything, and he would have even failed our old WP:SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ricardinho Costa

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

Professional career was under one minute in the second division for a reserve team when he was 19, no record of even his amateur career carrying on past 22. Perhaps the biggest example possible of the defunct WP:NFOOTY clearly not aligning with WP:GNG Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Mark Christopher (radio host)

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

Notability concerns for this out-of-date stub. Not to be confused with the Seattle radio host of the same name, I see no coverage other than the one 2009 interview linked in the article. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Tennessee. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Libertarianism, California, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - The link to the official website comes up, "We can’t connect to the server at www.markchristopher.net." Cannot find anything on this one precisely. More than one radio jockey named Mark Christopher comes up, but not associated with Nashville. And none of them seem a talk radio format. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete A WP:MILL talk show host hosting just as MILL talk shows down the line. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of news channels in Pakistan#Current channels. ✗plicit 00:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

SUCH TV

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

~~Regulatory actions/penalties like this and this are enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)~~ I've nominated this article under WP:NCORP as it is a for-profit media company. Regulatory actions or penalties like this and this are WP:ROUTINE news articles and come under WP:ORGTRIV. We need WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage that direct and in-depth about this company. Otherwise, it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The nom seems to want to keep the article and the sourcing is fine. The ones used in the article and above count as RS. What was the issue, why was this nominated for deletion? Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't want to keep the article - I have corrected my nom rationale. Gheus (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
~~Procedural keep~~ Please elaborate on a reason for deletion, Gheus. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for noting the mistake, Nate. I have updated my reasoning. Gheus (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment No problem at all; consider me now with the proper rationale supporting a redirect to List of news channels in Pakistan#Current channels. Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the discussion on the rationale provided now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels -Mushy Yank. 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels. Good alternative. 103.82.252.234 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television channels in Pakistan#Urdu news. ✗plicit 00:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Abb Takk News

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

The best source about this TV station is of Reporters Without Borders' article, but unfortunately it is very brief and says that this channel is known for "copying Indian TV channel ‘AajTakk’ down to its logo and most graphic designs." This is not enough to pass WP:NCORP which requires multiple in-depth articles in independent sources. Gheus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news per Mushy Yank. Good suggestion. 103.82.120.79 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television channels in Pakistan#Urdu news. ✗plicit 00:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Public News (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable news channel, coverage is mostly related to its founder Yousaf Baig Mirza. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news per Mushy Yank. Good suggestion. 103.82.120.79 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news as suggested above. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Dharti TV

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

Non-notable local channel, lacks independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi per Mushy Yank. Good suggestion. 103.82.120.79 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi for what was stated above 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. I find the 'delete' arguments persuasive in this situation, relative to our notability guidelines. If anyone wants this undeleted to draft, please let me know on my talk page and I'll happily facilitate. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Kyohei Hagiwara

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

MMA fighter fails WP:NMMA (no evidence of ever ranking in world top 10 for division) and WP:NSPORT/WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage in article (and in WP:BEFORE search) is routine match coverage and/or non-independent coverage on the website of his fighting federation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Japan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete No significant independent coverage. Match results are not significant and articles on Rizin's website are not independent. Fightmatrix has his current world ranking at #524, so he's not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep there seems to be independent written match reporting (as opposed to just results) for some of his fights on Asian MMA - example Here I dont know enough about MMA coverage to know if this counts as significant coverage or not, but it seems like several taken together might… as well as plenty of Japanese sources if you search using his name in Kanji - This article of example for his fighting, and This article as an example of the coverage around his domestic violence scandal. All in all there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy general notability, and then it’s just a matter of someone adding the information from those sources to the article and citing them properly. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Even independent match reporting is not WP:SIGCOV of the individuals in the matches; see WP:NOTROUTINE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: based on the comment above... The first article seems fine, second one is rather brief coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Both of the articles mentioned by Absurdum4242 are recaps of RIZIN 48 and focus on two things: Hagiwara's second 3 fight losing streak in his last 7 fights and the domestic abuse he was accused of that same day. His current ranking as the #549 featherweight by figthmatrix.com clearly doesn't show WP notability. I don't see how multiple sources reporting on the same fight card results with both reports mentioning charges being filed meets WP:GNG. It's clearly not a big enough event to provide notability on its own. The "no comments" or "we don't know" from fight officials does nothing to increase notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture

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

Article does not comply with MOS and there are no references cited. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. DeLano, David E. (December 1996). "C++ Report book review of Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns". In Rising, Linda (ed.). The Patterns Handbook: Techniques, Strategies, and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 518–521. ISBN 0-521-64818-1. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The book's appendix excerpts the entire review of Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns written by David E. DeLano in C++ Report in December 1996. The book review notes: "If I have anything negative to say about the book, it is that some of the language and grammar usage feels awkward to the reader. Early versions of the patterns reviewed on the World Wide Web suffered in the use of the language and grammar, but subsequent editing has fixed most of the readability problems. Some portions of the narrative text suffer some of the same stiffness and flow problems, but the importance of the content causes the reader to overlook the style issues. Overall this text is good and I recommend it as an addition to any collection of books on patterns. It also serves as good reading for those interested in topics on software development. As stated earlier in this review, this text should be viewed as a supplement, not a replacement, for existing pattern literature."
2. Glassborow, Francis (October 2000). "Review: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture". ACCU. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The review notes: "The main material is proceeded by an introductory chapter putting it into perspective. The book concludes with two chapters. The first of these is on using patterns as a whole. The final chapter looks at what has happened in the pattern movement since the publication of the first volume and takes a brief look ahead. ... If you understand this and have sufficient experience to be responsible for large-scale design then you should add this book to your library, after having read it once. This book is one of the more important contributions to the literature on 'patterns' and deserves to become a standard text on its specified area of interest."
3. Graham, Ian (October 1997). "Pattern-oriented software architecture (Book Review)". Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. 10 (6): 75–76. ISSN 0896-8438. EBSCOhost 500514125.
4. Murali, D. (2005-06-06). "Control is the key to the Net". Business Line. Factiva BSNLNE0020050605e16600021. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article notes: "Another heavy-duty book for the week is Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture, Volume 3 which is on 'patterns for resource management'. It has been written by Michael Kircher and Prashant Jain, and published by Wiley Dreamtech (www.wileydreamtech.com), bringing down the Indian price to about a tenth of the original US tag. First, a definition of 'resource'. It is an entity that is available in limited supply as for instance "memory synchronisation primitives file handles network connections security tokens and database sessions. "Identifying resource can be challenging, point out the authors. "Very often, the non-functional requirements of a piece of software such as performance scalability flexibility stability security and quality of service depend heavily on efficient resource management."Where do patterns come in? They help capture best practice in solving problems in almost every domain, explain Kircher and Jain. ... A pattern is called Lazy Acquisition, I learn, though I'm too lazy to find out what it does. As for the book, however the pattern I'd suggest software guys and gals to follow is 'eager acquisition'."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Linthicum, David S. (1997-10-01). "Patterns demystified. (integrating patterns into software development cycles) (Application Architect) (Technology Tutorial)(Column)". DMBS. Vol. 10, no. 11. M&T Publishing. ISSN 1041-5173. Factiva dbms000020011006dta10005t.
    The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "However, the best book on patterns for application architects is Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture (John Wiley & Sons, 1996) by Frank Buschmann, Regine Meunier, Hans Rohnert, Peter Sommerlad, and Michael Stal. (It served as a reference for me for this column, by the way.)"
  2. Bansiya, Jagdish (1998-06-01). "Automating design-pattern identification: DP++ is a tool for C++ programs. (Technology Tutorial)(Tutorial)". Dr. Dobb's Journal. Vol. 23, no. 6. Factiva dobb000020010916du6100022.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "While several popular design patterns have been catalogued and described by the GoF in Design Patterns, Frank Buschmann's Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture. A System of Patterns (John Wiley & Sons, 1996), and other books, most designers are not aware of these pattern solutions."
  3. Yang, Bin (2001-05-01). "E++: A pattern language for Java Internet applications, Part 1; Weaving the design patterns together". JavaWorld. Factiva javw000020010711dx510001c.
    The article notes: " Contains many interesting architecture and design patterns:Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture A system of Patterns, F. Buschmann, et al. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996)"
  4. Clemente, Paul (July 2005). "Comparing the SEI's Views and Beyond Approach for Documenting Software Architecture with ANSI-IEEE 1471-2000". Software Engineering Institute. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "Patterns are published in the literature; perhaps the best-known catalog of architectural patterns is the twovolume set Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture [Buschmann 96, Schmidt 00]."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Cunard. That’s enough for GNG and NBOOK. That the article is oddly written is not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Line 10 (Shanghai Metro)#Stations. Daniel (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Shuicheng Road station

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:STATION. Source 1 in article is an official system map (primary & not independent) and source 2 appears to be a database that may be user-generated (not reliable). A WP:BEFORE search on Google & Baidu in both English & Chinese did not turn up anything useful. I WP:BLARed this to Line 10 (Shanghai Metro)#Stations last year, but this was reverted by another user in October this year (rewritten but no improvements in terms of notability). I propose that the aforementioned redirect be restored. S5A-0043^Talk 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Looking at the adjacent stations it seems they have a similar level of sourcing. Batch nom might be preferable here? Jumpytoo Talk 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I intend to do this as a trial run before nominating other articles. Last time I jumped ahead in a batch nom I messed up in explaining my case and it kind of backfired so I’m trying to avoid that. S5A-0043^Talk 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good, redirect to Line 10 (Shanghai Metro) as WP:ATD. I found one source but that is insufficient for GNG: . Jumpytoo Talk 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Re-redirect >>> Line 10 (Shanghai Metro)#Stations Djflem (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Felix Mendez

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

This is my first nomination, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the subject of this article is not notable. I haven't found any sources that would talk about him in detail. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Name is too common to find anything about this individual, all kinds of hits on various subjects with this name. The one source used now is a PR item, so a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NBIO and WP:PRODUCER criteria. Content available online are predominantly from social media and user generated websites. No WP:RS or WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, Advertising, Puerto Rico, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per above. If you find 2 or 3 reliable sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. This is nothing more than a glorified CV, no secondary sources to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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 2024 Lanka T10 into Lanka T10‎ as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Lanka T10

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

Domestic event with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Also, its season article. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I say let’s keep it. What do you guys think about it - @Bs1jac, Kumarpramit, WikiEditPS, Goodknowme, Joseph2302, PEditorS10, Ankurc.17, MNWiki845, Cric editor, and Godknowme1:. Pkr206 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If you'd ask me there are already multiple T10 leagues going on, and soon more will pop up. But I guess we could keep the main article and delete the season wise articles, just have the final results displayed in the main one Cric editor (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow the same logic which is being followed for domestic T20 Frachises.. Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is to create articles only if it has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG. This one doesn't. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft it. The article doesn't have individual coverage or sources. Goodknowme (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Even though this is a domestic and a T10 tournament, it is organised by Sri Lanka Cricket, the governing body for cricket in the country (). It has received media coverage, both foreign and local, that is independent and verifiable (, , and ). Local and foreign players who meet the WP:NCRIC will be participating. The event is broadcast live on television in several countries by reputed sports channels and is also available online (, , and ). The tournament has also faced some controversy, including allegations of match-fixing (). As a result, this article meets WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTSEVENT criteria but requires maintenance and the addition of up-to-date sources. QEnigma (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@QEnigma: out of the 10 links you've provided here,
- ref 1 is WP:PRIMARY.
- refs 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are WP:ROUTINE.
- ref 7 - WP:NOTTVGUIDE.
- Local and foreign players participating does not count as WP:NOTINHERITED.
Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTSEVENT as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep- I was in a pub in rural Australia… Cootamundra (pop. Roughly 6,000) to be specific, it was broadcast on “Fox Sports Cricket”. If it’s broadcast nationally on a channel that is available to one of the biggest cricketing powerhouses in the world, than surely it deserves a Wikipedia page. 2406:3400:21E:F520:8539:FAAF:6689:B197 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not even a valid argument. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge season article into Lanka T10. There seems to be just about enough coverage for the Lanka T10 general event to have an article, but not separate season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested above. The current references are a bit thin and one citation is from a deprecated source but it is an ongoing event so more coverage may well be generated. However, there is certainly no need for separate season articles and in fact it will probably make the main article more justifiable to focus all content and references on that.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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 11:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jerzy Respondek

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

The subject of this article does not pass any criterion of WP:NPROF. Although very detailed, nothing in this CV is more outstanding than the average contributions of full professors. Moreover the article is largely written by its subject, is full of WP:PEACOCK terms and lacks of reliable sources D.Lazard (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. So far indifferent GS citations in a high-cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC).
Delete. Citations do not look like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, no other assertion of notability, and no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: There are a few papers published that come in Gscholar, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Dear Oaktree

Thanks for try of balanced analysis. See wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandermonde_matrix

And also my pre-published article (self-comment title!)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15696

Combining it with the fact that the elementary wiki pages needed to be adapted to current (about it later what is 'current') state of the knowledge (particularly with just my result), what I did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermite_interpolation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_matrix

it explains the notability of my result - and my page. Notice, that the cited book (knowledge source) is from 1960, but it is to insert the most mature version of the monograph. The fact we needed was in edition from 1932. It helps to clarify the notability of my page.

Thanks in advance. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Oaktree, Dear All

I have also achievements in "practically useful" fast matrix multiplication. This notion was invented by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pan. See:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081087.2024.2391807

It is hard to do sth new, in classic math, and useful for PC-computerss.

best regards, and PLEASE DELETE - BUT THE DISCUSSION, NO article. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not understanding what you're trying to show/explain above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Delete based on the comments above, does not seem to pass NPROF. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. His citation record is not strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and nothing in the article looks like it could meet any other PROF criterion. MathSciNet and zbMATH both show only one publication in the last 10 years, in 2016, not a good sign for research-oriented notability criteria. He has a new book but even if it already had reviews one book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - in 2014, everyone knows that we do not publish original research and we are not LinkedIn. The subject has edited his own article. Bearian (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I have just published a monograph:

https://link.springer.com/book/9783031769290

After it appearance I was and am going to correct this site, to include more citations to newspaper and public sources,

and removing of "WP:PEACOCK" sentences. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_of_matrix_multiplication

contained nothing about galactic size algorithms and that there are also available usable ones (since 80-ties!). I added sentence about it, but is was broken by Mr D. Lazard to:

"On the opposite, above Strassen's algorithm of 1969, and Pan's algorithm of 1978, whose respective exponents are *slightly above and below 2.78 have constant coefficients that make them feasible.*"

Above is a nonsense both mathematically and in the very language layer.

Thus I suggest Mr Lazard not insinuate to delete my personal page, better look what You are personally writing. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

1) With comparison to the page was created, my PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC POLITICAL record is much augmented. In months it will appear new links to newspaper articles. It contains a series of links to public newspaper information on my person.

(!!!) 2) I added a few valuable sentences and information to wiki terms, WITHOUT SELF-CITING:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermite_interpolation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_matrix

It is very surprising, how above terms WAS WITH HOLE - WHAT IN CASE ROOTS ARE *MULTIPLE* ??? The problem was solved already before word war II (~80-100 years ago), and the "wiki community" does know it ??? I started to fill those gaps in the knowledge You present !!! You should be more humble in judging others.

3) If You defectively be able to, delete be sure it will reborn in a version which will be free of current drawbacks. I am going to correct it and aware of a few general minuses of it. But it deserve to be correct, not delete.

4) The page is to be re-create in a few languages, i.e. German, Spain and French. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_of_matrix_multiplication

contained nothing about galactic size algorithms and that there are also available usable ones (since 80-ties!). I added sentence about it, but is was broken by Mr D. Lazard to:

"On the opposite, above Strassen's algorithm of 1969, and Pan's algorithm of 1978, whose respective exponents are *slightly above and below 2.78 have constant coefficients that make them feasible.*"

Above is a NONSENSE both mathematically and in the very language layer.

Thus I suggest Mr Lazard not insinuate to delete my personal page, better look what You are personally writing. Jerzy.Respondek Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We're not so worried about published monographs, as their effects on the broader scientific community. Publishing articles is what every academic does after their research, we need to see that it has an effect on others, usually by their citation factor among other things. Other criteria would include the invention of a new concept or theory, or authoring an important/notable textbook in their field of study. None of which seems to apply in your case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but try another criterion than citations: analyse the gaps in just wiki articles I corrected.

Why they were so hollow ? Wiki just makes effects on broad scientific community. We should not misguide a broad audience, pretending (or believing) that the case of multiple roots will never happen. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Filling in gaps in articles doesn't make you notable. I do the same and don't have a Wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

But I am filling the gaps, which firstly I filled in science. More precisely, solved it in optimal way as the first person. And they appear in basic notions. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per Bearian -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

> " (..) I asked the community of Wikipedia editors whether the page about you should be deleted. So far, all intervening editors (except you) agree that this page must be deleted."

They got a superficial impression, so for such a case is just a discussion. Look at the holes I filled in a few articles on elementary topics. The area of confluent Vandermonde matrix is too less known up to now. I shall give only one example: it is usable even is such an elementary methods like solving recursive equations by matrix tools. My arXiv work (waiting for review now) enumerates above a dozen (revision will have even more) of elementary applications. But what we have now, in wiki (But already I corrected two articles) and not only in wiki ? Authors are pretending that the case of multiple nodes in Vandermonde does not exists... But the theory on that was mature enough in 1932. Moreover, working on my arXiv I spent months to analyse a few dozens of algorithms to invert them - no one gives quadratic efficiency. Even if published in SIAM (in general N^3), or developed by authors which have monographs on special matrices (saying that it is possible to do in quadratic time, but surprisingly do not write how to do that, write only N^3 algorithm). The article on confluent Vandermonde matrix in wiki is still very poor. Even the definition was without source, I corrected it. But is was devised in 1901..

The <feasible> algorithms on FMM deserve to be promoted, if We want that the FMM topic will be ever applicable, not only the Strassen's.

Look deeper into my public activity, there are links to participation in science-policy parliamentary commission(*), advisory board at the government level, press agency news and opening plenary talks at reputable word conferences in Comp Sci/math. It is not typical, when scientists working in mat and computer sci participates in public life, especially shaping EU science politics.

In close years also a few another english-written press agency news will appear.

I am planning to rework my wiki page since a few years, but I wait for apperance of my book, to include it as milestone in scientific part of my career.

I am also in contact and consulation of my national reputable wiki editor, which advises me how to make my personal page professional, obeying wiki rules.

Besides, even if deleted I am sure that after another ~5 years my sole scientific results will justify the rebirth. However, I will not reveal my cards.

(*) British would name it "House of Representatives". Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

> The only existing algorithm" is unsourced, and PROBABLY wrong, even if one restricts existence to quadratic complexity

If there exists another always quadratic algorithm, I would be very curious to get informed of such an ?

But disclaimer: it must not pretend the algorithm, be written in a generic pseudocode or even a human-style description how to invert it. Only C/Pascal/Fortran form of the algorithm is viable enough to prove it works always in quadratic time.

Read the abstract from my arXiv, nothing add but nothing to remove:

"The author was encouraged to write this review by numerous enquiries from researchers all over the world, who needed a ready-to-use algorithm for the inversion of confluent Vandermonde matrices which works in quadratic time for any values of the parameters allowed by the definition, including the case of large root multiplicities of the characteristic polynomial." Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-published news or papers don't prove notability in Wikipedia, I'm sorry. I don't know how else to explain this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

News about me are not self-published. They are published by national, public press agency. If sbody says about himself it is not automatically false.

Look also for another science-indicators than citations. Maybe the holes I fill are still not fully filled.

Last but not the least - are You noticing also public activities ? Typical mathematician's pages probably has not such a, thus I guess most here (I believe at first glance !) have overlooked it. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as a lengthy description of humdrum activities with no indication that the academic notability standards are met. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Dear XOR: You invoke the the academic notability standards. Importantly, it is alternative:

"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."

It seems that You forget about the point 7, and/or have so far not read decently what I told on this site"

"The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not "forget" about it. There is no case that WP:PROF#C7 is made, either. XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing that proves the need for this page. TitCrisse (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Not true. See below and articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication_algorithm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_of_matrix_multiplication Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear D. Lazard, Dear All

Considering our factual, and even already fruitful debate on page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerzy.Respondek

I am applying for withdrawal of the deletion nomination. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in that discussion provides a reason not to delete the Jerzy Respondek article. A deletion nomination cannot be withdrawn after editors other than the nominator have agreed with it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That's why I have written to nominator.

--

Even if deleted, the sole scientific layer (with ignored public science ativities) will justify it to reborn after a few years. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete and WP:SALT, since it seems likely that the prolific commenter in this AFD is of the strong persuasion that this page should exist, and does not want to consider the many diverging opinions above. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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. I see no consensus against keeping the page in place. Editors are encouraged to start a discussion to merge the contents to Zahid Malik on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan Observer

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

Non-notable newspaper, coverage is mostly related to its founder, Zahid Malik. Fails WP:NCORP. I suggest to delete this article and then redirect to The Bangladesh Observer which was once a notable newspaper known as Pakistan Observer in Pakistan but was later renamed after East Pakistan independence. Gheus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a good ATD like a Merge or Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not fully certain at this moment, but after reviewing the biography of the founder, I found that he received several top national awards, typically reserved for individuals who are highly distinguished in their fields. Furthermore, it appears that his principal achievement was the founding of this newspaper, which seems to hold significant prominence within the country. Based on this information, I recommend retaining the article, with appropriate improvement tags, to further enhance its quality.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Zahid Malik. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED; awards and recognition were received by Zahid Malik, not by the newspaper itself. There are a few mentions like this one in BBC but coverage is not substantial enough to pass our WP:GNG criteria. 103.82.120.139 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Zahid Malik, it's one of the major newspapers of Pakistan...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NEXIST. There is sourcing that discusses the newspaper, its editorial positions, staff firings: eg , , , . FWIW...a national newspaper that's existed for more than 35 years in a country of 200 million people with a readership of 150,000...is *not* notable? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This is clearly a prominent English-language newspaper in Pakistan, as evidenced by its inclusion in this paper found by Goldsztajn. Newspapers are rarely covered by other newspapers, so they tend to be harder to find sources on, especially in areas with challenging conditions for journalism like Pakistan (see the BBC article). I believe we should lower our standards for notability accordingly, an idea explained in this essay, and the sourcing found thus far is enough to convince me that this article should be kept. Toadspike [Talk] 13:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hydra Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP.Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources.

Edit: @WikiOriginal-9:, you withdrew the nomination last time. Do you have any comments on whether or not this article should be deleted?

Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Germany. Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Fashion, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete I found this: , not certain about its reliability. There are plenty of insignificant news items and database listings, but no significant coverage I can find. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Rediect to Adidas or Delete - none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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!} 09:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Zero Hour (video game)

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

Found reviews in The Games Machine and Softonic, and a news mention in PCGamesN. While this isn't terrible it also isn't enough to pass WP:GNG because PCGamesN doesn't really offer up any critical opinions, and everything else is an unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. While I think a soft deletion would work in this instance in case the game becomes super popular (it was released only three months ago), the article does not really have significant coverage aside from The Games Machine article. The Softonic article I would also consider more unreliable as it appears user-generated and may not be independent with a download link. Conyo14 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not a game for an international audience. It's targeted at local Bangladeshis, & it's quite popular here. That is why you will find numerous evaluations in Bangla newspapers. You can also read Sportskeeda's review and IGN's article, "Old-School Rainbow Six Spiritual Successor 'Zero Hour' Drops Launch Trailer" Prantoo Biswas (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sportskeeda is not reliable: WP:SPORTSKEEDA. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment A source search should be conducted in Bengali per Prantoo Biswas to see if anything can be turned up. I'd do it myself, but I admittedly don't know the first thing about what Bengali sources are reliable, so I'll leave it in the hands of a more experienced editors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep It has notable sources attached to it. This0k (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Which ones? Conyo14 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Covered by The Daily Star, as well as their other potential game Agontuk. IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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!} 23:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Jerome Xaba

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African cricketer, to meet WP:GNG. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough significant coverage to warrant an article.
Shrug02 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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. Just noting here that the previous AFD on this article subject was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo)

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

Fails notability, it was deleted once after this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri now created under another name by the same user to trick wikipedia. This is also clearly against WP:COI. Sports2021 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment - given that this was created by the same user as the one that created Hamidreza Sadri, could this be WP:G4 speedy deleted? Both claim to just be direct translations from Farsi Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the deleted version, and had to decline the G4 as this one has more content and more sources, so can't really be considered identical enough. I'm not commenting on whether this demonstrates any notability either, only that it appears (superficially) to be a more credible attempt at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep to me the users decided wrongly about last AFD , because he has the notablity of sportpersons in Wikipedia and I Didn't tricks anyone I just couldn't put New AFD, however This article is only translated from the farsi Wikipedia . Hamidreza Sadri is holder of Silver medal Asian junior and Gold medal at military world games which both competitions are notable for Wikipedia and many other international tournaments and now he plays Azarbaijan national team and these days he injured but he will get back to competitions soon

*Timsar* (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "users decided wrongly"; everyone is free to make their arguments as they see fit, and the closer of the earlier AfD discussion certainly closed it correctly as reflecting consensus. You may not like the outcome, but you should not dismiss it as "wrong". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Again misinformation here, he never won a gold at Military World Games, he probably won a medal in World Military Championship (a different competition with a lower level) even though even winning medal at World Military Games (which he never won) doesn't justify notability. this is clearly WP:COI, trying to promote someone. Sports2021 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sports2021 he never won? What do you mean exactly?! All the military world games organized by the International Military Sports Council (CISM) and Hamidreza Sadri won gold medal at it! Here you can find out! And he achieved the best technical player in This tournament! *Timsar* (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sports2021and I'm not promote someone! He had farsi and Azarbaijani wiki I only translated it to English wiki. *Timsar* (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sports2021 I checked your actions many times on many articles Like this one! Please check Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point *Timsar* (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

World Military Games and World Military Championships are two different things. both of are not notable in wikipedia standards. but at least World Military Games has some level of importance because it's a multisport event. someone who never won a major senior World or continental medal (probably never even passed the first round) and never qualified for the Olympics fails Wikipedia:NSPORT. Sports2021 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But I think International Military Sports Council is notable too! They have article in wiki! *Timsar* (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sports2021 a sport person When is notable that plays for International tournaments in order to achieve topic or medal not mentioned to Olympics or ... Whi *Timsar* (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Nothing has really changed in the six weeks since the article was previously deleted. The coverage is still insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he has no accomplishments that would meet WP:MANOTE or show he is a top 10 world athlete (a criteria used in sports such as boxing and MMA). World Taekowndo shows he has never won a fight (or even a round) at any international tournament they recognize. Success at minor or youth events does not show English WP notability, nor does the fact he has an article at any other wiki. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
If you are looking for WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE you can just search him in Persian "حمیدرضا صدری (تکواندو)" and if you are looking for all the events where he fights in ; you can just click here *Timsar* (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at taekwondodata.com and a number of other sources. He simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Different wikis have different notability criteria and he doesn't meet any of the ones on the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

All the content in farsi and English wiki are same, how you come that they have different notablity criteria?! It seems you didn't check wright, anyway All his honors mentioned in his article in 3 languages, All his honors are mentioned in many sources in several languages *Timsar* (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment All the Wikipedia's rules in all languages are getting update of English wiki! So they have not different rules with each other. And Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo) article is only a translation of the orginal ones in farsi. And he is qualified enough for have an article He is champions in world military championships and Silver medal of Asian championship 2017. So if these tournaments are not notable whay they have article in Wikipedia? I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the corporation

*Timsar* (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Please notice that the page creator is now globally blocked. Sports2021 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Are they a sockpuppet and, if so, could this be WP:G5 deleted? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I took a look and apparently he used sockpuppets in another wikipedia not sure if that counts in English wikipedia. Sports2021 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why that matters, socking is socking. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The medals won don't seem notable enough for an article. This is the only coverage I could find , this would seem to fail notability requirements and a lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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 00:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

BiSheng compiler

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It says the compiler was integrated into EulerOS, perhaps merge to there or delete for lack of reliable sources. IgelRM (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

BlueOS

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

● Keep- Covered in Multiple Reliable Sources, thus passing WP:GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There are multiple secondary sources cited in the article with by-lines authors. Without a source analysis from the nominator explaining otherwise, I'm not seeing a reason that doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, passes GNG and SIGCOV as several independent, reliable sources are referenced in the article, passes PRODUCT in my eyes as the article seems fine in that regard.

Only real bother for me is that the article could use a little more meat on its bones. Not enough to warrant a delete IMO. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. This AfD was the victim of extensive off-wiki canvassing, including at least two separate threads on Reddit. The timing of those threads coincides with the avalanche of Keep votes (not "!votes") from users who rarely, if ever, participate in AfDs, and a few who barely ever edited here at all. It is interesting to note that prior to this canvassing, there was a clear consensus to delete. Since this is a highly contested issue, I'll provide a detailed reasoning behind my close.

Many of the Keep arguments were of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or the WP:ITSIMPORTANT kind. Some claimed this was a historically important event, which was correctly countered by those pointing out that this list isn't nominally about any event. Others insisted that the question of timing was irrelevant or coincidental, which seems disingenuous, seeing as the page was created four days after the most talked-about murder currently in the US.

I found the various flavours of "Keep per RWall514" odd, seeing as RWall514 argued for deleting the list in its current form. The "Keep for now to ascertain whether WP:NLIST is met" vote was also without merit. We do not keep articles to decide whether they meet our guidelines; that's what AfD is for.

I found the comparison to Pokémon, by an editor with 39 edits to their name, amusing. We used to have the Pokémon test for arguing notability at AfD. Thankfully, we now have better guidelines to help us determine notability.

The question about Category:American health care chief executives was neither here nor there. The criteria for retaining a category are vastly different from those for keeping a list article.

The edit war taking place on the article has no bearing on our decision here. We are discussing the topic, not the content of the page. I'm not sure about the suggestion to take this to RfC. Decisions on retaining or deleting a page are generally handled at XfD.

Special thanks go to Cunard, a venerable pillar of AfD, for identifying many potential sources to help us determine whether the list meets WP:NLIST, which is at the crux of the issue here. Alas, even Cunard had to concede that all of those sources dealt specifically with CEO salaries, rather than supporting an indiscriminate list of healthcare CEOs who happen to be based in the US. The suggestion to editorially "repurpose" the list to one supported by the CEO salary sources was correctly rejected by Sirfurboy. The purpose of AfD is to determine whether the subject meets our criteria for notability and encyclopedic inclusion. Content can be changed editorially, and titles can be changed with a simple move. But if the subject is changed, we are dealing with a different entity, which means the current one is not supported by sources.

In the end, the underlying claim that the list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT was not adequately refuted by those voting Keep, which isn't surprising, considering the canvassed voters seem largely unfamiliar with our policy and guidelines.

And while I'm no fan of wielding WP:IAR, I fear Dclemens1971 makes a strong point about this list and its clearly calculated timing being viewed as a "hit list". The claim that the list potentially puts people in danger was not echoed by others. That said, several participants pointed out that the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence. Wikipedia is not "This Thing of Ours." Owen× ☎ 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

List of health insurance executives in the United States

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep This clearly has become an important topic of discussion. Deleting will lead to cries of Wikipedia bias and appear to favor one or another view on the event that led to the creation of the article. It will continue to be an important topic of discussion. There are lists of well-noted leaders of other industries, this should be no different. DharmaDrummer (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — DharmaDrummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the top 50 companies by whatever metric is arbitrary. I suggest having the article list the chief executive of companies notable by Wikipedia's standards is a better scope and have updated the article to reflect that. Also see List of chief executive officers. It seems like the article can likely be improved as an alternative to deletion. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, this isn't List of health insurance executives in the United States on a hit list, so I don't think the dependence of the shooting should negate those sources. I'm not advocating that though. I also think delete because the grouping is not significantly covered. Conyo14 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The chief executives of health insurance companies have been covered in reliable & secondary sources over several years as a group in the context of executive compensation (NPR, STAT News, Becker's Hospital Review, STAT News, Hartford Courant) and more recently, the context of security (The Hill, STAT News). GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem here isn't whether or not it is sourced, but notable. The grouping (CEO's of health insurance executives in the United States) doesn't appear to be notable or specifically sourced in any way. This is why it fails WP:CROSSCAT. If this were a category (not a list-article) of all health-related organization CEO's past and present would be far more appropriate as it could be used to support the project. As it stands, even if this were converted to a category, it would be very challenging to maintain (keeping it up to date with the "current" CEO's and only applying it to specifically the top 50 Health insurance Orgs again, subject to change) Jcmcc (Talk) 00:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom as failing WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NLIST. The timing, the mention of Johnson and the fact that the only detail is about compensation packages is highly suspect and the article creator should probably be on a list somewhere. Astaire (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you're arguing for more lists, not less. 120.22.16.98 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Feels suspect re timing, and we don't need articles simply listing execs in particular industires. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather than Delete due to WP:CROSSCAT, the article should become wider, such as "List of health ensurance chief executives", period. Worldwide. This on its own should also mitigate the notability issue. As a Brazilian, I am willing to source executives from my country. MandRaiden (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Health insurance in the United States is enough for now. Dympies (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per failing WP:NLIST and the timing. Multiple previous vandal edits include "Hit" or "Hit List of chief executive officers Effective immediately".--Chefmikesf (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
That you bring up which kind of vandal edits were made to the page just highlights that the delete rationales are not based on Wikipedia policies or any reasoning. It does not fail the policy you linked for example because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the timing is irrelevant to whether or not an article is to be kept. Per policy, decisions should be made not based on vote-counts but on rationales/reasoning/discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep its a part of what is arguably a historical event. make it larger and expand it to a worldwide scope maybe. but dont delete. MildLoser (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC) — MildLoser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If this is about the Killing of Brian Thompson, then that article already exists as linked. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is just textbook WP:RECENTISM. 1) We're not a crystal ball and so are in no position to establish if this is "arguably a historical event" (everything is a historical event, but we'll say a highly notable one). 2) This list, while hastily constructed by GH as a direct response to the killing of Brian Thompson, is highly incidental to it. 3) There's really no such thing as "expanding it to a worldwide scope", because for most health insurance executives even in the US, we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here with this six-item list (arguably two of which don't even warrant their own article). And the US has the categorically most dramatically privatized health insurance system in the entire developed world that I know of and thus should yield the most notable health insurance executives. I would suggest that you try creating a concrete example worldwide list in your sandbox before suggesting that this be moved without any evidence that it would improve things. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per RWall514. It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon"). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Wikipedia is a reference for public information. These people are of financial and medical note. I agree with MildLoser that it need not be exclusively US-focused. Amber388 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs. Naturally the list needs clear cut criteria, then it wouldn't be open ended but eventually come to a natural conclusion. The criteria shouldn't be too strict though, lest we cut the list short. We certainly shouldn't overshoot when deleting content. As for design, bullet points seem the logical choice but maybe a table instead would be better? Anyway, the page hits already show that the content is of interest. The listed CEOs so far all have articles, even with professional headshots, so clearly notability is given. Maybe a minimum annual salary would be a good criteria for inclusion. If it was based on that an international comparison could be educative. --SchallundRauch (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC) — SchallundRauch (talk

"Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs" - that's not how this works. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Pokemon Test. Just because Vaporeon has a page, doesn't mean some CEO should have one. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment See List of chief executive officers for a similar article that has been kept at AfD. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment – This is not similar enough to warrant discussion (even if WP:WHATABOUT were generally valid), because your list is incredibly restrictive to the point of effective uselessness, whereas that one isn't. Being a chief executive officer of a company with over $10 billion in revenue is substantially less restrictive than being an executive of a health insurance company which operates in the United States. You'll note List of chief executive officers is 1) worldwide (something this article couldn't even benefit from expanding to because of the uniquely messed up state of US healthcare), and 2) operating in any kind of industry. Moreover, that article actually has a completely objective criterion to gatekeep inclusion in the form of "companies with revenue over $10 billion", whereas you cobbled this one together without regard for this sort of good, common practice in lists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep as standard index of people by occupation per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. Should Category:American health care chief executives be deleted? Expand and improve. Mbdfar (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Strong Keep* Note there are several other pages with executives of various companies and industries, like this List of Paramount Pictures executives or the List of railroad executives. This deletion request is clearly related to recent events, and this article is also clearly related to them with its timing – however, just because the timing of the article creation lines up with something doesn't mean that this article is inappropriate. If we have something as niche as a list of Paramount Pictures executives, then a list of health insurance executives is far more important to be included. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment – This kind of textbook whataboutist argument often gets brought up at AfD discussions, and it isn't compelling. 1) Whereas List of Paramount Pictures executives has actual, unambiguous criteria, this list in the nom clearly doesn't (see, for example, what I talked about on the talk page). 2) I would argue that because they're never seemingly discussed in reliable, independent sources as a group that 'List of Paramount Pictures executives' probably ought to be axed itself. 3) List of railroad executives should be cleaned up to remove those without a corresponding article, but here's something you're failing to grasp here: that list is able to be so long because it has two only criteria – firstly, you need to be in the railroad industry, and secondly, you need to be an executive.

List of health insurance executives in the United States is so, so lacking in blue links because the following criteria need to be met: a) in the insurance industry; b) specifically in health insurance; c) an executive; d) in the United States; and (unstated because this list was created for soapboxing and thus the inclusion criteria are vague and clumsily established) e) you should be a current executive of the company. The inclusion criteria are both hyper-specific in the kind of job you have to be in (like 'List of Paramount Pictures executives') but simultaneously completely unclear as to the threshold for inclusion (like 'List of railroad executives, where even redlinks are included seemingly at random). Thus, you get the worst facets of these two arguably poor lists you've cited. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Lists don't need to be strictly made of blue links per WP:AOAL, where it is encouraged to "include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list". Mbdfar (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Correct. In taxonomic articles, where large portions end up being red links to child taxa which are themselves considered inherently notable, this is a crucial component to building out the encyclopedia. However, lists have to have some sort of defined, auditable scope that inherently constrains the size. As I noted at the talk page, these include 1) A title that automatically makes it so that people can easily audit when a list is complete (such as child taxa or officially licensed games made for a specific console), 2) an arbitrary cut-off of n elements based on a certain metric (such as cutting it off at the 50th or 100th most x thing), 3) a similar cut-off except defining a high floor for x instead of fixing the number of elements n (such as cutting off companies under $10 billion in revenue), and 4) only permitting list items which either already have a Wikipedia article or (if a red link) for which the notability isn't contentious. Often for criterion 4, articles will have a commented out subset of these items which may be notable but which don't currenlty have articles. This functions as a compromise for facilitating expansion while also not becoming a landfill for redlinks of questionable notability. The fact that GH wasn't even using redlinks and was just throwing in CEOs seemingly at random tells me they didn't care so much about expansion based on notability and moreso that they wanted to treat this list like an indiscriminate landfill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – This list is hyper-specific and extremely poorly made in a way that it's only "useful" as construed by recent outrage spurred by the killing of Brian Thompson. You can see my suggestion on the article's talk page to make this a potentially viable list, and to my mind, it's clear nothing like that is actually workable. GeorgiaHuman's conduct since December 4th has shown me very clearly that this article was made with soapboxing in mind, not because they seriously thought that it meets something like WP:NLIST. Keep in mind that this nomination is currently being brigaded from Reddit (weird how with that, there's a sudden influx of 'keeps' after all the 'deletes'), and I think it's a serious wake-up call that we might want to keep these sorts of high-profile deletion discussions semi-protected to protect the integrity and make sure they're high-quality and based on policy instead of just off-site brigading from people with almost no grasp of policy or guidelines (edit: to clarify: at least in this case, /r/wikipedia is more likely to understand policy and guidelines, but brigading often comes from sources with literally no knowledge of these principles and derails discussion). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree this is specific, but not hyper-specific. List of United States insurance companies currently has almost 40 notable insurance companies. This list of CEOs, if kept, could potentially have several entries per company. Seems like an appropriate amount of content and useful for navigation. Mbdfar (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The main caveat with List of United States insurance companies, which I did see when trying to give the nom a concrete inclusion criteria, is that every single one of the items (except one, which I'm going to remove as non-conforming with the others) have their own article (and as you can see, the fact that it's just companies and not tethered to health dramatically increases the number of articles listed; it's dramatically less specific because we axe two majorly limiting criteria from this one). It seems that ZimZalaBim did what I should've done a few days ago which is to remove all of the execs who weren't notable enough for their own articles (at least counteracting some of GH's worst tendencies as an editor), but even then, something like Sarah London and Jim Rechtin are very arguably non-notable (they were created recently as minimally cited stubs expressly as a response to the killing of Brian Thompson). And unfortunately, opening up this article to 'List of health insurance executives' probably doesn't help that either, simply because the US is – if I'm not mistaken – one of two developed countries in the world with this kind of absolutely screwed up private health insurance system, the other being Switzerland. And I'm sincerely doubtful more than even one Swiss health insurance exec is notable enough for inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Note that it used to resemble the top 40 list before people decided to delete half of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_health_insurance_executives_in_the_United_States&oldid=1262191393 Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Per reasoning of Users Kopf1988 and MildLoser. - L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep but consider broadening the scope of the article per nom Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep/Close w/o prejudice for renom This article is undergoing an edit war over the inclusion criteria. I a disappointed in certain well established editors, who should know better than to enter in an edit war over this. The problem is the inclusion criteria, and we can't judge the article on its merits when that question isn't settled. This whole discussion would have been better resolved through an RfC, than by nominating the article at AfD and people blanking half of it. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above and expand to different industries. Pedrogmartins (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) — Pedrogmartins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per NLIST. Rare examples of actual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation in this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Mild keep. This isn't currently a great list, but I don't think it's categorically improper under WP:CROSSCAT; that would be something like "list of insurance executives who play the accordion". Health insurance executive has been a well-recognized category of American executive for generations. Health insurance executives have featured, inter alia, as a group called before Congressional hearings and as the subjects of surveys (there could be numerous additional links for both of those). Discussions about them as a group (and their pay) have been a fixture of every wave of national health care discussion since at least the 1990s. I am inclined to agree with the comments above that the concerns over scope and quality of the list are best addressed by iterative improvement through the wiki process. That said, with an eye to such improvements, I think this would support the encyclopedia much better as part of a detailed List of health insurance companies in the United States, which could contain fields for CEO information and also put that information in a more meaningful context. (The existing List of United States insurance companies#Health insurance (major medical insurance) is sadly little more than a navigation aid, but could be the beginning of something.)
As an aside, I am concerned by the above bludgeoning of keep !voters with charges of whataboutism. There should be no place on Wikipedia for this kind of hostility to thoughtful dissent. Using WP:WHATABOUT to attempt to discredit any and all arguments from analogy simply reduces that essay to absurdity. After all, [a]nalogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. Moreover, our PAGs derive their legitimacy, if any, from accurately reflecting actual practice, so attempting to discount arguments simply for being based on actual practice is literally as far from a policy-based argument as it is possible to be. -- Visviva (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep, I was going to say delete, but then looked at five or six other entries in Category:Lists_of_businesspeople, and they’re all way worse than this. So while maybe there’s a broader discussion to be had about how lists that just duplicate categories should all be culled, this article doesn’t just do that. And I’d argue, also, that it doesn’t fail CROSSCAT as it’s not an arbitrary selection of criteria; the US health insurance industry and the levels of recompense of its CEOs has been often discussed in print media, so the criteria are sufficiently interwoven. Fish+Karate 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CROSSCAT and failing WP:NLIST. A lot of the keep votes seem quite policy deficient, with arguments that amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, etc. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep for now This article was created a few days ago. I think it’s eminently reasonable to allow some time to ascertain whether WP:NLIST is met (my intuition says it can be shown to be if it hasn’t already been somewhere in the comments above).

I think the WP:CROSSCAT argument is rather weak since it interprets the policy as covering “Americans” as a group, which is a tight squeeze. That’s neither commonsensical nor supported by the extensive coverage in RS of the topic.

Is the timing of creation suspect? Well, perhaps, but also not really. Newsworthy events tend to draw editors’ attention to related topics, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the sort of editor who is brave enough to create articles to decide to do so after their attention was directed by news, or widespread internet discussion. And even if the creator had the motivations some above have ascribed to them, there is an extremely wide gap between an editor wanting, say, the names of a group they consider notable for bad behavior to be publicly visible in one place that Google likes, and creating a hit list. Their motivations don’t matter anyway here, since the decision rests on the usual inclusion standards and nothing else. The topic itself appears to be notable, a page as short as the current revision couldn’t conceivably be worth nuking, that should be that as far as I can see.

Per policy, there is no legitimate reason to bandy such terms around, and the delete voters are also making a lot of noise about keep votes being non-policy-based, while by eyeball estimate making fewer and shorter policy arguments themselves.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep This article cites multiple third-party list articles which themselves group these people together. Also, Wikipedia already has biographies on many of these people, and it is routine to make lists and categories for topics which have things in common, and are as a class the subject of reliable sources, and when topics in the list have Wikipedia articles. We do not need a comprehensive list in third party media to decide who to include. We just need to establish that sources have listed people in this category in any lists of any kind whether short or otherwise, and then we include people who meet those criteria when they also qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This List serves as a valuable and verifiable resource for users interested in understanding the leadership landscape within a critical industry that significantly impacts public policy, economics, and individual well-being. It's importance can be summarize in the following:

(1) Health insurance executives wield substantial influence over healthcare access, affordability, and policy-making in the U.S. By aggregating information about these individuals, the page provides a unique and relevant resource that highlights key players in this VERY high-impact field.

(2) This List is particularly useful for researchers, journalists, and policy analysts investigating trends in corporate governance, healthcare management, or industry consolidation. This List helps us understand the individuals who shape a critical sector of the U.S. economy!

(3) This List should be KEPT! In fact, if properly maintained with verifiable and reliable references, the page aligns with Wikipedia's standards for content reliability. Its continued existence should hinge on maintaining and improving the references, not deletion. We should ADD more to this list to cover ALL of the CEOs, their board members, and executive teams from ALL health insurers in the USA.

(4) ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY are enhanced when information about influential figures, like health insurance executives, is accessible. This aligns with Wikipedia's mission to democratize knowledge! Why are people even talking about gatekeeping this information 🤦

(5) Wikipedia already hosts numerous lists, such as "List of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies," which serve as templates for this type of resource. The presence of this page aligns with similar contributions to the platform's encyclopedic scope. You delete this, just delete them all!

LuciusRex5 (talk) LuciusRex5 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC) — LuciusRex5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your first and only edit to Wikipedia. Welcome. How did you find this discussion? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Hello all. I would welcome feedback on the current version of the article. I know there were some initial questions about the scope. I took it upon myself to add more links to articles of executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). There are probably some missing, and certainly other notable people who do not yet have an article. In my opinion, this is an acceptable length for a list article with room for expansion. Mbdfar (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but expand and improve citation per RWall514 Snokalok (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Draftify: This list is not inherently inappropriate, and could be improved, but the timing of its creation is certainly suspect and it is likely to be a vandalism magnet in the near future if kept. As such I think it should be workshopped in draftspace until it meets a higher standard. It can be moved back into mainspace later, provided that it has been sufficiently improved and there is consensus among editors to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Timing is irrelevant. If there was a cabbage story in the news and someone was prompted by that very story to write a page about cabbage (assuming it did not exist, of course), nobody would care about the timing. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 22:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Coming in late to this discussion, but I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST since no one has supplied sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of all of these individuals as a discrete topic. Next, it fails WP:NOT by being a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information with no clear boundaries. "Health insurance executives" can include dozens of individuals at each company. And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies in the health insurance area when you factor in subsidiaries, reinsurers, health insurance service companies, insurtech, and more. The standards of inclusion are unclear and no one has supplied sources that narrow them down reasonably and in a way that does not constitute WP:OR. Moreover, this is a violation of WP:CROSSCAT by arbitrarily slicing the list as "executives" versus other employee types and to the United States. Finally, and this is an WP:IAR rationale, in the context of the online discourse following the murder of Brian Thompson, this list is basically going to be viewed by people (although heaven forbid not used by anyone) as a hit list, and that's certainly what Wikipedia is NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Added comment: I see Mbdfar above has identified the scope of the article to executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. The scope is truly indiscriminate, and this article seems like a WP:COATRACK to build a database of people in these roles, which again Wikipedia is WP:NOT. (Not to mention this list is going to require immense levels of maintenance to be kept up to date as people switch between different jobs.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "no consensus" closure following discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Permanent link to that discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Per Dclemens1971, who has very clearly shown all the policy arguments I would have made. That is, this does not meet WP:NLIST (vague as that guideline is) because this list, as envisaged here, cannot be demonstrated to be significant as a discrete topic, discussed as a group or set. It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and a violation of WP:CROSSCAT. List articles can be frustrating because our policies are vague on them, and we often retain list articles that fall in the grey area, but in this case there are very clear reasons why this article should not be retained. Again Dclemens1971 puts a finger on it. This is very clearly a WP:COATRACK, and an absolutely astonishing example of unwise drafting based on current events. At a time when US health insurance companies have been taking down the profiles of their executives on safety grounds, it seems that some feel Wikipedia should frustrate their attempts to do so by providing a handy ~~hit~~ list of all such executives. If that is not a violation of WP:NOT then WP:NOT needs rewriting. Indeed, intentional or not, the existence of a page such as this also fails on neutrality and public safety. It risks bringing the encyclopaedia into disrepute, and it does not serve any true encyclopaedic function. The information about the notable executives remains on their pages. The collation of this list adds no encyclopaedic value. It can safely be deleted. It cannot be safely kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I respect the takes of the two above editors, but disagree. Even with recentism at play, the subject of 'American health insurance executives' is notable as exampled above. I understand the CROSSCAT argument, but also as stated above, would broadening the scope to simply global 'health insurance executives' really change the list? I don't know the answer. I also think it's interesting that between this page and the talk page there are simultaneous discussions about this article both being too broad in scope and too restrictive. Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation. Mbdfar (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per LuciusRex5. I'd also add that timing is irrelevant to this discussion. I agree with Mbdfar. I think it would be fine to expand this to health insurance CEOs globally, although I don't think it's necessary. Ze0n (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC) — Ze0n983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

LuciusRex5 did not make a single argument based on policies and guidelines, so I am not sure about the value of pegging a !vote to their's. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete I agree that this fails WP:CROSSCAT and appears arbitrary in its selection of individuals. There are hundreds of health insurance executives in the United States, and who qualifies as major is a matter of judgement. The list will undoubtedly become filled with primary sources from a company's website, and become unverifiable with time. BootsED (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Despite the recent event of a Healthcare CEO this is important and necessary to know the other CEOs names. Without it, it would be harder to find information about other CEOs in the healthcare industry. Rager7 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you are describing a directory, which isn't really why we exist. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NOTDIR. Listing execs in just this industry, and not lists of executives in other industries, also feels unencyclopedic. List of chief executive officers seems entirely reasonable; this list doesn't. — The Anome (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep but rework. The content is good, as is the idea for the article, but it could maybe include health insurance executives in other countries. Or merge to Health insurance in the United States. I'm strongly opposed to an all-out deletion of the content, it just needs to be improved. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "health insurance executives in the United States" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Adeel, Noor Ul Ain; Hammel, Tyler (2024-08-27). "UnitedHealth's Witty was highest-paid US health insurer CEO in 2023". S&P Global. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article lists UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s Andrew Witty; Elevance Health Inc.'s Gail Boudreaux; Molina Healthcare Inc.'s Joseph Zubretsky; Cigna Group's David Cordani; Centene Corp. CEO Sarah London; and Humana Inc.'s Bruce Broussard.
2. Stannard, Ed (2024-03-11). "Health insurance CEOs rake in millions, including in CT. Here's the top 10 list". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article lists UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty, Elevant Health (formerly Anthem) CEO Gail Boudreaux, Centene Corporation CEO Sarah London, Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, CVS CEO Karen Lynch, HCSC CEO Maurice Smith, Cigna Health Group CEO David Cordani, GuideWell Mutual Holding CEO Patrick Geraghty, Molina Healthcare CEO Joseph Zubretsky, and Independence Health Group CEO George Deavens.
3. Formisano, Ronald P. (2015). Plutocracy in America: How Increasing Inequality Destroys the Middle Class and Exploits the Poor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4214-1740-0. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance executives are being paid millions, reaching Wall Street levels, mirroring the disproportionate compensation that prevails in the United States more than in any other advanced economy. Though they opposed the ACA's new regulations, the CEOs of the 11 largest for-profit companies hauled in packages in 2013 worth $125 million. The biggest winners were Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, whose compensation totaled $30.7 million—a 131 percent increase from the year before—and Centene's CEO Michael Neirdorff, whose earnings climbed from $8.5 million to $14.5 million. Meanwhile, though they are turning large profits, these companies warned patients and businesses that premiums would probably rise in 2015. In 2009, insurance executive Wendell Potter became a whistleblower and began to expose profiteering in the health-insurance industry. He has collected data showing that the more health insurers deny claims, the higher their executives' pay."
4. Sanders, Bernie (2024). It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. New York: Crown Publishing Group. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-593-23873-8. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The book notes: "Meanwhile, the six largest health insurance companies in America made over $60 billion in profits in 2021, led by the UnitedHealth Group, which made $24 billion. And, not surprisingly, the CEOs in the industry receive huge compensation packages. In 2021, the CEO of Centene, Michael Neidorff, made $20.6 million; the CEO of CVS Health, Karen Lynch, made $20.3 million; the CEO of Cigna, David Cordani, took home just under $20 million; and the CEO of Anthem, Gail Boudreaux, received more than $19 million in total compensation."
5. Livingston, Shelby (2018-03-12). "Health insurer CEOs see some significant pay bumps in 2017". Modern Healthcare. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article lists Anthem President and CEO Gail Boudreaux; Molina Healthcare's CEO Joseph Zubretsky; Molina Healthcare's previous CEO J. Mario Molina; Cigna CEO David Cordani; Humana CEO Bruce Broussard; and Centene CEO Michael Neidorff.
6. Livingston, Shelby (2019-03-18). "Some insurer CEOs see bigger paychecks in 2018". Modern Healthcare. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article lists Centene CEO Michael Neidorff; Cigna CEO David Cordani; Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux; Anthem's previous CEO Joseph Swedish; Humana CEO Bruce Broussard; and Molina Healthcare CEO Joseph Zubretsky.
7. Livingston, Shelby (2017-04-29). "Health insurer CEOs awarded raises in 2016 despite a year of tumult". Modern Healthcare. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article lists Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish, Cigna CEO David Cordani, UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley, Centene CEO Michael Neidorff, WellCare Health Plans CEO Kenneth Burdick, and Molina CEO J. Mario Molina.
8. Mattera, Marianne Dekker (2006-06-02). "How about cutting insurance execs' pay?". Medical Economics. Vol. 83, no. 11. p. 8. ISSN 0025-7206. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Gale.
  The article lists UnitedHealth Chairman and CEO William W. McGuire, Humana's President/CEO Michael B. McCallister, Chairman/CEO of Cigna H. Edward Hanway, WellPoint's Larry C. Glasscock, and Aetna's John W. Rowe.
9. Herman, Bob (2022-05-12). "Seven health insurance CEOs raked in a record $283 million last year". Stat. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article notes: "The CEOs of America’s seven largest publicly traded health insurance and services companies cumulatively earned more than $283 million in 2021 — by far the most of any year in the past decade." The article lists Cigna CEO David Cordani and UnitedHealth CEO Dave Wichmann.
10. Herman, Bob (2023-04-27). "Health insurance CEOs set another record for pay in 2022". Stat. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  The article notes: "In 2022, the CEOs of the seven major publicly traded health insurance and services conglomerates — CVS Health, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Elevance Health, Centene, Humana, and Molina Healthcare — combined to make more than $335 million, according to a STAT analysis of annual financial disclosures." The article lists Joseph Zubretsky, the CEO of Molina; David Cordani, the head of Cigna; Bruce Broussard of Humana; and CVS CEO Karen Lynch.
11. Healthcare executives:
  1. Behm, Carly (2024-05-21). "Kevin Lobo 10th highest-paid healthcare CEO: WSJ". Becker's Spine Review. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
    The article lists 10 healthcare CEOs.
  2. Gooch, Kelly (2024-05-21). "10 highest-paid healthcare CEOs". Becker's Hospital Review. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
    The article notes: "Here are the 10 top-paid healthcare CEOs, according to the analysis:". The article lists Joseph Hogan, Align Technology; Peter Arduini, GE Healthcare Technologies; Andrew Witty, UnitedHealth; Robert Ford, Abbott Laboratories; Gail Boudreaux, Elevance Health; Karen Lynch, CVS Health; Joseph Zubretsky, Molina Healthcare; Samuel Hazen, HCA Healthcare; David Cordani, Cigna; and Kevin Lobo, Stryker.
  3. Galloro, Vince; Vesely, Rebecca; Zigmond, Jessica (2007-07-30). "Trying to compensate: Latest ranking of CEO compensation finds stock options still key to pay as experts monitor for effects of SEC rule changes". Modern Healthcare. Retrieved 2024-12-22.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
    The article lists Tenet Healthcare's president and CEO, Trevor Fetter; chairman and CEO of HCA, Jack Bovender Jr.; DaVita's CEO, Kent Thiry; Cigna's H. Edward Hanway; Humana's president and CEO, Michael McCallister; UnitedHealth Group former CEO William McGuire; UnitedHealth's new CEO, Stephen Hemsley; Aetna CEO Jack Rowe; and the chairman, president, and CEO of Universal Health Services, Alan Miller.
WP:CROSSCAT
WP:CROSSCAT says:
Wikipedia articles are not:
- Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
This article does not violate WP:CROSSCAT because the grouping of "health insurance executives in the United States" has been discussed in reliable sources for many years. A "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" would not have so much coverage.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles should not be":
1. "Summary-only descriptions of works."
2. "Lyrics databases."
3. "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics."
4. "Exhaustive logs of software updates."
Since this article is none of those, it does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
The list's scope and its perceived flaws
As defined in the lead, the list's scope is "notable executives of companies in the United States health insurance industry". I consider this to be a clear scope that matches what the sources say.
Some editors above think that the list's scope should be changed. This can be discussed on the talk page. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

Advantages of a list
From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of a list:
1. Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia.
2. Can be embellished with annotations (further details).
The benefit of this list is that it includes "further details" through having the executive's title and company. A category does not have that functionality. As the sources largely focus on the executives' compensation, the list could be further enhanced by adding this information.
Addressing some comments directly
Coming in late to this discussion, but I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST since no one has supplied sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of all of these individuals as a discrete topic This is incorrect as GeorgiaHuman (talk · contribs) provided sources showing this meets WP:NLIST at 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC).
Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. – it is likely that nearly all of the people in these roles are non-notable, so they would be excluded from the list. Any executive who is notable should be included in the list.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Cunard's list of sources do not demonstrate notability for this list because they all concentrate on the highest paid CEOs. Every one of them. This is an indiscriminate list of all executives, whether CEOs or not and regardless of remuneration. It is obvious this was not created off the back of news articles about the top 10 best paid CEOs (which would still be a nonsensical Wikipedia article to write per WP:NOTNEWS). It is not GNG that must be met, but WP:NLIST and nothing here supports the retention of this list article. It fails WP:NLIST. And to reiterate: we often just let lists go based on this kind of shoddy sourcing, and that is all well and good for many lists, which do no harm. This list adds no encyclopaedic value but it absolutely does harm. WP:IAR should almost never be argued at AFD, but there is a very good question about what is best for the encyclopaedia here. Because this list does actual harm. It actively circumvents safety precautions being taken by companies to protect their staff in hostile circumstances, and it carries a huge and real risk of Wikipedia coming under attack for allowing that to happen. So as well as failing NLIST, this really must be deleted. We can't just keep it as harmless. It is not harmless. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard's list of sources do not demonstrate notability for this list because they all concentrate on the highest paid CEOs. – this is an acknowledgment that there is a topic (highest paid health insurance CEOs in the United States) that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Concerns about revising the list's scope to better reflect the sources should be handled through a discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Sources about this list topic were published in 2006, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022, 2023, and 2024. Sustained coverage over a decade means WP:NOTNEWS is not violated. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  So we agree that what has been discussed as a group or set is the highest paid CEOs, and not this list. Thus this list should be deleted. It should be deleted because as it stands it does not meet NLIST and as it stands, it is dangerous and bad for the encyclopaedia. Repurposing the list is wrongheaded because it preserves the dangerous history. If you want a list of the top paid CEOs, create that as a new article. This list does not help you get there. And that is without even pointing out the obvious problems in suggesting a list of top paid CEOs fails WP:NOTNEWS, owing to the fact it is in constant flux, and only reported in newspapers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. Content remains in case any editor wants to Merge any of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sanjay Kumar Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is clearly not ready for mainspace but a new user has now move-warred to keep it in mainspace from draft.

Sourcing in the article is inadequate for a BLP and are mostly primary sources. Better to continue to incubate in draft, if not delete outright per the last AfD's consensus. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Canada. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The last version of the article by the creator stated he was born in Kerala before another user changed it to Bihar without adding a source on the matter. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey there!I was the new user that "move-warred" to keep this article in mainspace. This article is based on the article for Escott Reid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escott_Reid, however it contains more sources.

All sources are vetted and from the Indian government (2 articles), neutral sources (1 article) or press (2 articles).

Beyond the article,

I moved the page to article, ghostofdangurrey moved it to draft, I removed an uncited sentence and moved it to article (which I assumed was the best way to work based on the details from the help articles). While I understand if there is room for improvement, gatekeeping editing and using words like move-warred (when I apologized for moving it following a comment), is an interesting way to moderate. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete As the only thing to change since the last AfD is something that would fall under WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I feel like Detective Columbo right now. Wait, what was that last thing? Covering up an international assassination plot and getting you and your cute family deported and expelled from a country famous for its super nice diplomatic culture? I think that’s more than BLP1E. This is the stuff of which procedurals are made. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I would not oppose a ~~murder~~ merger to Canada–India diplomatic row. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I would also be amenable to a merge to Canada-India diplomatic row. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Same. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: per nom as there is no appropriate coverage to warranty an entry especially for a BLP and the information is already included in Canada-India diplomatic row FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirecting is fine; I don't believe there is any content worth merging that isn't already at the target. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom or Redirect to Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. RangersRus (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

MCI Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Previously PROD. Imcdc Contact 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Switzerland. Imcdc Contact 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NCORP, WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRIT. Most of the coverage are from PRWeb, which is an online press release platform. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fail to meet WP:GNG.--Tristancr (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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 JD Vance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Electoral history of JD Vance

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

Premature page splitting for a topic that is not mature enough to have long-term notability under WP:LISTN. Generally, a politician should not have a separate electoral history article until they've been through a few cycles with substantial analysis between performances. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists, and Ohio. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge back per nom Andre🚐 04:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete A separate page is not needed for someone who has only been in two elections. Reywas92^Talk 05:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a stand alone list, so WP:LISTN does not apply. I don't see any harm with having this as a seperate page, but for now it doesn't seem like we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - duplicates information already on his main article. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to main article as a plausible search target. S5A-0043^Talk 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to main page, per nom. and others. WP:TOOSOON for a separate page. Sal2100 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to the main article for now. There is not a sufficient amount of content to warrant a separate page. desmay (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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 01:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

TriangleOS

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4 (not sufficiently identical), although the given sources do not provide much more evidence of notability, and a WP:BEFORE couldn't find anything else except forums and primary sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. As mentioned by nominator, WP:BEFORE search came up with primary sources and forums. The article itself cites two self-published sources (here and here) which are not reliable. I would say this fails WP:GNG and definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. I also doubt there will be any future coverage considering the project was seemingly discontinued as of 2006. Beachweak (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete obscure hobby OS doesn't appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources. Andre🚐 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the original website of the project (wcools.nl) must be reliable, it's managed by the creator himself Swsrqurk (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is reliable, it is not independent and so does not build the case for keeping an article, see WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - no indication of sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Just a discontinued hobby project, I would be surprised if there was anything. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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. Editors interested in converting this article to a Redirect can begin a discussion on the article talk page about that possibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ruger LC carbine

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

Disputed WP:BLAR but this article fails our WP:NOT policy, it is little more than a catalogue listing for two of the related guns by the company. As the BLAR was disputed, I proposed redirect to Sturm, Ruger & Co.#Products. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I object. I created the page for other to edit it as they wish. I oppose the deletion of the LC carbine wikipedia page outright. Stormm001 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Needs sourcing... Some coverage in the NRA magazine and in Guns magazine . The NRA would certainly be biased, but I see no reason it would not be a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank You 🙏🏻 Stormm001 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I would point out that the coverage is not the issue and I too saw some reviews in conducting a BEFORE. I'm not saying the notability of the subject is the concern here. To Oaktree b's point, not only does it need additional sourcing in the article, it needs content. My argument instead was a WP:NOT policy. Redirect and tag with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R with history}} but presently two infoboxes and some catalogue stats do not an article make. Like I said, this is just the formal process of a disputed WP:BLAR. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Topic appears to be notable, though article needs expansion. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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. as an ATD. Please know that you will need to submit this draft to WP:AFC and not move it directly into main space of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias Capital

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

Article does not assert a claim of notability. Leading an investment round is WP:ORGTRIV that would not suffice for notability of the company raising the funding, nevertheless one of the investors. Brandon (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and California. Brandon (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. The company is notable not just for the investment or its amount, but because it invested in a Mexican American-founded and minority-led biotechnology company. This aligns with their focus on addressing bias and the lack of funding for minority and underrepresented founders—an issue that has been highlighted in multiple reliable sources. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The article currently contains no reliable sources. If some exist, it would be helpful to include them in the article. Brandon (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I used 3 sources and I believe they are reliable, given the content of the article. I could be wrong though.

Do you mind expanding on your comment? Vortexjourney754 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The test here is notability (from WP:ORGCRIT) "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Only one link in the article (businesswire) is a secondary source, and Bias Capital just gets a passing mention. JeffUK 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There are additional sources. However, given the name of the company, it's not necessarily obvious whether the content is about the company or the concept of "bias in the investment space." There's definitely an overlap but my understanding is that the connection between a cited source and the its subject (e.g. the relevant wiki page) should be obvious. Am I mistaken?

I also just added some information about the company that I for some reason believed was already present. Thanks for letting me know about the passing mention. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Arguably the Business Wire source is a press release and would fall under WP:PRSOURCE. Brandon (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm now officially confused about the feedback. Is it the issue the quality of the sources? Or simply the amount? I've run across a few pages that have as low as 2-3 citations, and afaik there has never been a request for more citations. If the number of citations is the issue, then there should be a tag/warning added requesting that more sources be added. There was initial feedback stating the article relied solely on a single citation. This was fixed. The press release was written by Parker Health for Parker Health, so from Bias Capital's perspective, it is an independent source. Bias Capital's mention is not promotional and simply reflects the factual structure of the deal. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria will give you the answer to that! JeffUK 08:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand it a lot better now.

Would it be okay for me to just move the article back to the draft namespace? Vortexjourney754 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I converted the article back to a draft. It would probably make sense for or someone else to remove the "nominate for delete" template that's being used.

I might end up deleting it later, but I'd like to just keep it around for now. This is my first submission for a page, and I had pictured a very different outcome.

Anyways, thanks a lot for the comments & feedback. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I understand that the consensus is that the article on Bias Capital doesn't currently meet notability standards. With that in mind, I’d like to request that it be moved to draft space instead of being deleted. This would give me the chance to improve the article and work on adding more reliable sources without the risk of losing it entirely.

I’m happy to continue working on the draft, and if more verifiable sources come up in the future, I’d be glad to bring it back to the main namespace when it’s ready. I think this is a fair compromise that allows the subject to be developed without the immediate pressure of deletion.

Thanks for considering! Vortexjourney754 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, just not enough coverage. JeffUK 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I find no coverage outside of funding announcements, which is rather routine for a venture capital firm. I don't see how this is much different than any other such firm... Sourcing now is their own website and a funding announcement. Neither of which is helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
There's no coverage because you don't like the coverage you saw? That's no way to make an argument. This goes against "notability doesn't equal fame." If I was to claim that A, B, C articles have 3 sources or less, therefore if this page is deleted, they should be deleted as well, I'd lose all credibility. Outside of the Parker deal, I didn't use any funding announcement as a source. Also, outside of maybe the Microsoft, Google, and A16Z of the world, most corporations, independent of industry, use their own site as source so your claim about it not helping for notability goes against the established patterns of the wikipedia platform. Would the firm be notable if has received a profile by the Wall Street Journal instead of the funding round? Vortexjourney754 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I did a google search, and found no sources that discuss this firm. I hope that helps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes it does. Thank you! Vortexjourney754 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Draftify per author request. There is no reason to delete this when the author has requested draftification, unless someone would like to nominate for WP:G11. Toadspike [Talk] 23:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Move to draft in line with the article author's two requests on Dec 18 above, with the understanding that any subsequent restoration to mainspace should be through the WP:AFC process. AllyD (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hunan Self-Study University

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

This article does not appear notable based on WP:RS Amigao (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep An important, if brief, part of modern Chinese history and a listed cultural heritage site in Hunan. Chinese wikipedia has an article: zh:湖南自修大学旧址 (admittedly, unsourced). I've added a number of links, including a biography of Li Da which discusses his time at the university, and this article from China Daily.

Article is not an orphan (single link at Yang Youlin but could be linked to from a few of the notable students/teachers' pages. There are a few uncited passages in the article which may or may not be supported by sources, but I've left them for now. This should pass GNG either as an orgainzation or as a historical site (which is how it's treated on the Chinese wiki). Here's some info from the China Daily article.

China Daily "From Qingshuitang to Chuanshan Academy, Chengbei witnessed Mao Zedong's "small family, big country" road

Via Google translate "Under the plaque of "Chuanshan Academy" in the courtyard, there is an inconspicuous signboard of "Hunan Self-Study University". Surrounded by progressive youths and workers and peasants, Mao Zedong took to the podium to give instructions and talk freely....The second two rooms restore the bedrooms of Mao Zedong and He Shuheng, the office of the Hunan Student Union, and the library of the Self-Study University. Pictures and other forms show Mao Zedong's experience in the Self-Study University, as well as photos and life stories of some people who studied at the Self-Study University.....In 1921, Mao Zedong, He Shuheng and other comrades set up Hunan Self-Study University here to gather talents from all over the world. From its founding in August 1921 to its closure in 1923, the Self-Study University had more than 200 students, including Li Weihan, Xia Minghan, Yi Lirong, Jiang Mengzhou, Guo Liang, and Mao Zemin, who trained and sent a large number of backbones for the Party."

Oblivy (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao would you like to have a look at the article and see if you still think it qualifies for deletion? I think we're at WP:HEY. Oblivy (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can keep per WP:HEY. Thanks for doing a lot of improvement on it. - Amigao (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Oblivy, although I would not be opposed to a suitable merge. No obvious merge arises though, so perhaps make that a separate discussion. Although this was only open for such a short time, the identity of the founder, the notability of alumni and its place in history all speak to clear notability, and the sources added are already sufficient. It is likely it gets mentioned in other secondary sources too. Definitely not a delete. Is seems that the article will always be short. This is not necessarily a problem though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 17

Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church

Hassan Palang

Sandkorn-Theater

The Simpsons Funday Football

Division of City Schools–Valenzuela

Diego Garcia (footballer, born 1997)

Ricardinho Costa

Mark Christopher (radio host)

SUCH TV

Abb Takk News

Public News (Pakistan)

Dharti TV

Kyohei Hagiwara

Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture

Shuicheng Road station

Felix Mendez

Lanka T10

Jerzy Respondek

Pakistan Observer

Hydra Ventures

Zero Hour (video game)

Jerome Xaba

Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo)

BiSheng compiler

BlueOS

List of health insurance executives in the United States

Sanjay Kumar Verma

MCI Group

Electoral history of JD Vance

TriangleOS

Ruger LC carbine

Bias Capital

Hunan Self-Study University

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks

Related Articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081087.2024.2391807

"Health insurer CEOs see some significant pay bumps in 2017"

"Health insurer CEOs awarded raises in 2016 despite a year of tumult"

"Trying to compensate: Latest ranking of CEO compensation finds stock options still key to pay as experts monitor for effects of SEC rule changes"