Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information < November 12, November 14 > ...
< November 12 November 14 >
Close

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 speedy keep: non-constructive request (non-admin closure) AntiDionysius (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)‎

Primus (band)

AfDs for this article:


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

The least commercially viable band on Earth is not notable. Primus sucks. I do not feel bad for the four mentally ill fans of Primus who will lose this page. 橋本健二 (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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 23:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Lauris Bērziņš

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

Delete – I really struggled to find any references at all. The single external link in the article does not work, either on the original site or archive.org, and other WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:SPORTCRIT. In particular, I couldn’t find anything to satisfy Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Finally, taking the results stated in the article as they stand: even if they were substantiated, notability would, I suggest, be a reach. It is possible that there are more extensive and significant sources in Latvian to establish notability, in which case I would be happy to retract my delete recommendation. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 14 November 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 23:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Christine Barbe

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

I wrote this article well over 10 years ago and now I do not believe it qualifies for a Wikipedia article based on WP:GNG. All the sourcing I can find is just passing mentions. Thanks for assuming good faith on this nomination. Missvain (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. A shame, because it seems like an interesting topic.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Amy Aiken

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

I started this Wikipedia article many years ago. Now, in hindsight, I do not believe that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article due to notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. All the mentions of the subject are merely passing and not significant. Missvain (talk) 22:42, 13 November 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 Dimension 20.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Zac Oyama

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

This bio does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Oyama is probably best known for his apperances on Dropout, of which I am a fan and subscriber, so I don't take any pleasure in nominating this article for deletion; however, I'm just not seeing the sourcing to meet our notability requirements. All of the sources in the article are either passing mentions, interviews, or not independent of the subject, and I'm not able to find any better sources in my WP:BEFORE.

Oyama may become notable in the future, so draftification would be a reasonable option. Redirecting to Dropout (media company)#Cast members would also be a reasonable alternative to deletion. I'm open to discussion on what the best course of action would be. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I originally tagged the article, 55.55 days ago, as likely not meeing muster for Wikipedia:Notability; it hasn't improved sufficiently since. Redirecting to Dropout (media company)#Cast members is probably fine (the entrant there is even sourced), and would preserve the preexisting work for possible expansion in some future. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, probably best to redirect to ensure the history is preserved. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Seems a little weird to me for him to be the only regular from Dimension 20 without an article, but that's not a valid argument to keep the page. So I guess redirect for now. Though, this might be worth revisiting as early as January since it's possible that the live Dimension 20 show at Madison Square Garden could generate enough coverage of him to establish notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think redirecting is the right call. I ran into a similar problem as Lord Bolingbroke with trying and failing to find good sources. The article was supposedly made as the result of a reddit thread discussing how Zac didn't have an article rather than any notability outside of the Dropout fanbase, but I don't think it's out of the question that sources will eventually pop up that can get the artcile to meet GNG. LaffyTaffer (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT. None of the sources count toward notability. Source #1 is a podcast interview with his friend from high school, so it's not independent. Source #2 is a brief playbill bio, and sources #3, #4, and #5 are one-line passing mentions – does not establish notability. Source #6 was written by Oyama himself (primary source). A redirect to the Dropout cast makes sense. Nodicenomasters (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dropout (media company)#Cast members per WP:ATD. I agree with the nominator's assessment of the sourcing, and this seems like the right outcome. Additionally, the best the I found in a WP:BEFORE was this source on gender but it is only a passing mention.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 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 Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

So Min-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 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 Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

So Kyong-jin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Michael C. Taylor

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

Previous AfD was blanked by the author, who also attempted to blank the entire log. Subject does not seem to be immediately notable, though I'm not sure if the article is significantly different from the version deleted in 2019. CycloneYoris talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. CycloneYoris talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    My reasoning for why this article should now be removed, is because Taylor is a mayor of a city with a population with 50,000. Also, the article is well sourced about M. Taylor. Lastly I added edits on how he made national news on two occasions, which wasn’t the case back in 2019. So it seems like he has significant credibility on becoming an article for Wikipedia. Raspberry505 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. One endorsement does not notability make. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No qualification under WP:NPOL. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE of a WP:MILL suburban municipal elected official. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 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 Kolkata Metro stations#List of stations planned, proposed or under-construction. Per consent of the nominator as a non-controversial redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

List of proposed and under-construction Kolkata metro stations

List of proposed and under-construction Kolkata metro stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The matter in this article is present on List of Kolkata Metro stations#List of stations planned, proposed or under-construction so let's avoid duplication.‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reywas92, this was bad advice. This article shouldn't be converted into a Redirect while this discussion is going on. I have reverted this action. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
No it's not, my only bad advice was forgetting to tell the nom to withdraw the nomination. WP:WDAFD allows the nominator to "change your mind" and "realise the nomination was a mistake." Because the page is obviously a WP:DUPLICATE (and the page should be redirected rather then deleted anyway to preserve the history), RIP B1058 should follow the first line of WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it," consistent with WP:BEFORE C4. There no requirement that there be an unnecessary discussion for 7 days. Reywas92Talk 14:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Once a discussion has been started, it should not be ignored. The choice is BOLD or discussion, not both. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Right, which is why I've clarified myself to say the nominator can and should withdraw the nomination. Doing so does not forbid then being BOLD. Reywas92Talk 22:47, 16 November 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 Research centers at Boston College. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Lonergan Institute

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

No refs on the page for many years. As an ATD it could be merged with Boston College but currently it is not mentioned on the target page and there's little indication as to the importance of a RD (in fact it appears that there is an institute with a very similar name at a different university so a RD could be confusing). JMWt (talk) 19:59, 13 November 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. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Mariló Montero

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

Non notable journalist and presenter, cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NPERSON and GNG –Davey2010Talk 19:40, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Stephen Hardy

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:23, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ross Twell

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:23, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Harry Robinson (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Paul Rowley (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Rhys Mathewson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Simon Preston (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Pete Dyos

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Roy Shattuck

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while losing candidates get articles only if they can establish that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or they can show credible reasons why their candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this makes no other notability claim at all besides an unsuccessful candidacy, and is referenced only to the bare minimum verification that he existed rather than anything that would make his candidacy permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PERP, a criminal accusation is not in and of itself enough to secure the permanent notability of a person who wasn't already notable for any preexisting reason prior to being charged with a crime. We would need to see verifiable evidence that he was convicted, not just indicted, and we would need to see a lot more detail about what the purported election fraud entailed, and evidence that it had a verifiable long-term impact on anything. (For instance, an election fraud conviction that had the effect of influencing major changes in election fraud law would have a stronger basis for notability than one that just disappeared into the ether afterward.) Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 18 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Mark Tanko

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT with independent and significant sources. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 13 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yip Ka Yu

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

Played 892 minutes of football in the Hong Kong Premier League. (Played in the second league as well, not professional.) No notability as a football player, and no notability under the WP:PERP guideline either. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 13 November 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 7-Zip. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the 7-Zip article may be a suitable alternative to deletion - the subject of this article is mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Pavlor that redirect to 7-zip is a good idea. ServiceAT (talk) 15:14, 19 November 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 am willing to restore to draft space if the original creator would like to continue to work on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Molecule Art

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

Absolutely no notability of this term is shown in the article; it mostly appears to be a gallery of a few drawings. A BEFORE search of the term was fruitless as it doesn't appear to be an actual recognised term and I'm just getting lots of results for art of molecules. Fails WP:GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, yet to meet the notability guidelines as aforementioned. Perhaps could refer to WP:NMG. Pygos (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - this "art movement" or "art form" does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A BEFORE search does not find any art historical or art critical coverage for this movement. A Google Books search finds zero hits, and a search of Oxford Art Online, The Concise Dictionary of Art Terms, Encyclopedia of Aesthetics and the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics show no results for "Molecule art". I noticed that all the images used in the article were uploaded as the article creator's "own" artwork and released as the copyright holder. If that is the case, then WP:NOTAWEBHOST might also apply. Netherzone (talk) 14:53, 17 November 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) 18:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

E. Kumaril Swamy

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

Article is almost wholly unreferenced, affected by significant COI editing, and not at all neutral. I am unable to find evidence of WP:SIGCOV anywhere. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Butting in to note that the article states that there are supposedly over a thousand articles about the subject, including over 70 interviews. Perhaps these could save the article if found? Haven't been able to find anything though. Jornmann32 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I had the same experience when I went looking. The most good faith interpretation would be that these articles only exist in non-digitised archives, but in that case we would need the COI editor (who says he is the grandson of the subject) to get specific about citations for them. So far he's just been adding Pinterest links. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:08, 13 November 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) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Beth Doherty

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; only seems to have passing, three-sentence at most mentions in occasional articles. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV at all. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NBIO and WP:GNG are not met. Effectively all of the coverage (in the article and that I can find) is of statements by the subject. Rather than about the subject. To the extent that the subject is mostly only mentioned in passing in the sources within the article. I also note that the WP:BLP bar (already a high bar) is even higher for articles about children. While this higher bar perhaps no longer applies, even a biographical article about an adult would require reliable/verifiable sources for the text about the subject's date-of-birth, role with ISSU, planned participation in a 2021 European Youth Parliament event, etc. There are no sources AT ALL for this text. Nor can I find any publicly available material about it. To the extent that I cannot fathom what the author was relying upon for these statements. (I also note that the author added several inline references in places where the sources do not mention the subject or otherwise support the text - suggesting that the author appears to have been relying on first-hand knowledge rather than what's actually in the sources...) Anyway, absent actual/verifiable/reliable/biographical sources (of which the subject is a primary topic), I cannot recommend anything other than deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 19 November 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. No prejudice against creating a redirect at Choklo. asilvering (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Joklo

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

No sources mention a "joklo" river as a tributary to the Langnyu, even the sources in the article only talk about the Choklo. My move of the article to that title was reverted (previous draftifications to get the article up to scratch didn't result in much either). The article should be at Choklo if it is to exist at all (none of the sources are really about the river but mention it), not at the unverifiable "Joklo". Fram (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I've noticed quite a few of this users articles not really being ready for the mainspace - I draftified one earlier today only for it to be immediately recreated with none of the issues fixed. Regardless, this article in particular is a single sentence stub about a river that, reading the sources, isn't notable or called what the article says it is. CoconutOctopus talk 17:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Langnyu: after moving back to Choklo. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No objection to creating a redirect as suggested by Owen X but that should be done outside of this AFD. A message needs to be sent from the community to this article creator as the behavior described by Fram is concerning.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 21 November 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 2024 Solidarity motorcycle Grand Prix. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Valencian Community motorcycle Grand Prix

2024 Valencian Community motorcycle Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. An event being cancelled doesn't reach the level of notability to have an entire article. This could be a note added to another article about the event cancellation. Demt1298 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 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) 17:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

2023 Big Matches

2023 Big Matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't need separate seaon articles for this schools cricket tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am also ominating an article for a match played as part of this season:

63rd Battle of the Babes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Both fail GNG. Information can be hosted in Big match, and Battle of the Babes articles. Chanaka L (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. We don't cover school's cricket unless very historic, and even then we do not cover seasons. AA (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No need to separate each edition. -- IDB.S (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Delete As per nom.
    Shrug02 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 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. Owen× ☎ 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Peter Farkaš

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

Farkaš played a total of 925 minutes before disappearing in 2013. The only secondary source I found is SME, a transfer announcement. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:35, 13 November 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 Crowdfunding. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of crowdfunding services

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

This is not a comparison article. A ton of bricks 12:24, 13 November 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) 17:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Rupandehi Challengers

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

Don't need separate team articles for team that competed in 1 or 2 editions of the Dhangadhi Premier League, as they don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following other DPL team article:

Team Chauraha Dhangadhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Delete As per nom.
    Shrug02 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 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) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Balkh Legends

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

Non-notable teams all who played for one season of the Afghanistan Premier League. Don't need separate team articles that do not pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related teams from the same tournament:

Kabul Zwanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kandahar Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nangarhar Leopards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paktia Super Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Delete As per nom.
    Shrug02 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 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) 17:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ana Reis

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

Not yet notable as a musician, filmmaker or writer. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Portuguese turned up very little coverage in reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs and passing mentions in secondary sources. Some of Reis' family are apparently notable, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,
I am submitting a request to retain the Wikipedia page for Ana Reis, as her work has significant cultural, artistic, and historical relevance that justifies her inclusion in Wikipedia. Ana Reis is a notable artist with unique contributions to the art world. Although there may be limited online information readily available about her, this should not detract from her established importance.
The scarcity of online references does not accurately reflect her accomplishments but rather relates to documented personal circumstances, which may have contributed to her underrepresentation in digital sources. (Redacted) These elements, though private, have affected the availability of Ana’s contributions and thus hindered the broader recognition she rightfully deserves.
Despite these challenges, Ana Reis’s contributions to the art community have resonated deeply with her peers, and her work has been recognized in several exhibitions, publications, and private collections. Her notability is rooted in her artistic achievements and the influence her work has had on contemporary art. I respectfully ask that these factors be taken into account when reviewing her page for retention.
Thank you for considering the broader context surrounding Ana Reis’s significance. Her page serves as a vital source for those interested in learning more about her unique contributions to art and culture. Sanguedereis (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
This is fine, but we need sourcing in reliable, neutral sources. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Beside online sources what else is needed? Fellow artists can provide statements and testimonies as well as links to existing works can be provided. Where can these be sent or uploaded to? And is there any deadline for this?
Additionally please be aware person in question is under ongoing and systematic attacks, (Redacted). There are plenty of bona fide artists with scarce sources deemed not too reliable, and it's not positive either for person in question, to request further silencing and invisibility. That is in a way or another enabling and endorsing the abuse against them. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Not to be accusatory but this text reads to me like it was generated from a large language model. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
That text is written manually in own words. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: A book "awaiting publication" is not notable, this appears to be PROMO. There are hardly any sources to be found about this person when I look. Sourcing in the article isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally agree on PROMO. No substance, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
This case concerning Ana Reis's recognition isn’t due to any lack of relevance or a genuine artistic dimension but rather to complex life circumstances that have severely limited her access to fair opportunities and visibility. her background is marked by high-profile abusive influences and substantial evidences are available to prove that. She faced systemic obstacles that have stifled her career in ways that very few people experience. However, being very active from 2000 until 2026, both her network and collaborations show an artist with a substantial history of work,, including mention by utmostly respected musicologist who has noted her contributions. However, these connections haven’t shielded her from isolation and undue obscurity.
Due to aforementioned undue influences, she worked alone, with no fundings or grants, no publicity, no 'promos' whatsoever as someone mentioned above, no producers, no promotion machines. Over the years she struggled immensely to have valid and thorough media coverage for her work that deserves deeper considerations and study in its inner world of imagination and symbolism. Equally, aforementioned undue influence/s have occupied most her life keeping her, much against her will, away from her own professional and creative activities, under severe devaluation and micromanagement. This caused her to over the years lose reliable social networks, professional support, and public exposure. Her work and impact became underrepresented, often leaving her vulnerable to having her career and reputation questioned or undervalued, which cause rightful feeling of demoralization and injustice.
The controversial situations she has been denouncing touch a subject taboo, the cruelty of narcissistic mothers towards their daughters, who often become invisible and unheard under a stifling, toxic parent who wants all the spotlight and the daughter is left 'inexistant'. And that is also why it is so important to recognize her contributions and unique originality of her work, rather than allow further erasure. Evidences of her past collaborations and testimonials from many fellow artists over the years, are being requested and underway, as this may greatly help to an accurate acknowledgment of her creative works. Ana is worthy of a fair chance to be seen for her artistic contributions rather than being made invisible. What some have said in the remote past that 'the press ignored them' is on Wiki too and taken as fact, but that's an affirmation of absolute falsehood and doesn't correspond at all to real facts (Redacted), and it's thoroughly disappointing when a privileged person presents false complaints but does exactly the same they complain about, to who they should never sabotage the light they receive. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

information Administrator note Some comments in this discussion have been redacted as breaches of WP:BLP. Please do not post contentious but unsourced material about living persons. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. I've nothing to add to the well worded rationale. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete As always, we are guided by what is out there in reliable sources, and this falls far short. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 14 November 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) 17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Mary Akpobome

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. She has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of her. All of the sources cited in the article are interviews she granted to newspaper outlets.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG here. Sources are not providing the substantial coverage that we need for a subject to qualify for a standalone page. There is also no inherent notability as the director of Heritage Bank. I am not opposed to redirecting to that target. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I am, funnily enough, opposed to a redirect. Fails WP:GNG signally, the article is typical promo/UPE, IMHO, and deletion is the best course. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I’m not even sure her husband is notable. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    I was thinking the same thing. I don't think he is either. I will definitely look at the article about him and review the sources available online.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sources present and in a search for more does not meet the general notability criteria and there are no other criterias to warrant an inclusion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:33, 15 November 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) Kaizenify (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Santosh Kumar Singh

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh, I disagree. Based on this alone, we have an elected politician passing WP:NPOL and a pass the popcorn moment, to boot. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Oh my mistake, someone completely changed this article which was earlier about a minister of Bihar. Even I have edited it before. See current version, I have restored the orginal version. The version I nominated for delition was about a non notable politician of the same name. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Would it not make more sense to rewrite the article to be about the elected politician??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    If so, we need to get present one deleted. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment The article was about an elected representative and minister in Government of Bihar, Santosh Kumar Singh means this person File:Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with minister Santosh Kumar Singh (cropped).jpg. However, a new user changed it to current version and made it an article about a non notable politician of the same name, File:Son of Shri Prem Shankar Singh.jpg this person is an officeholder of a small regional political party and not elected to any constitutional post, even a local body. Therefore, I nominated it for delition.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and close - The article was hijacked and turned into a biography of a non notable individual. Clearly passes WP:NPOL and @Adamantine123: should at least check the revision history before nominating, these nominations are a waste of time for the community. Dympies (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Liz has reverted it into non notable version. It was me who added the picture of Santosh Singh the labour minister, which helped me to identify later that it was highjacked. You should also mention that it is not notable in present form. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Do not misrepresent Liz's edit here, she only reverted your disruptive revert which removed the afd template while the discussion was still going on. As per the latest revision the subject is clearly notable having been elected to a legislative body . Dympies (talk) 12:51, 15 November 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. Owen× ☎ 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Gravel Hill, Indiana

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

A rail point with nothing there. Searching turns up nothing except that it was a rail shipping point. Baker calls it a village but I've grown dubious about that; undortunately there doesn't seem to be a county history. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete A cursory Google News search pulls up one hit. Before the paywall snapped up, I could see that "Gravel Hill" appeared on a vertical list of place names. I'm very comfortable deleting this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 13 November 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) 17:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Adamas International School

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

This article about a school has been tagged as unreferenced since 2019. I have carried out WP:BEFORE but cannot find independent, reliable references to add to the article. I do not think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:NCORP. The school was established in 2004 so it may be WP:TOOSOON for notability to be established. No obvious redirect target - the one for the locality is a stub. Tacyarg (talk) 15:22, 13 November 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 see a rough consensus to delete. But even without such consensus, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows us to delete such a BLP at the subject's request. Owen× ☎ 21:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Raffi Indjejikian

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editors stating that they are the subject. The nomination rationales given are "this article is about me and was published and edited without my consent and I would like it removed", "article about me without my consent, non controversial to delete", & "this page is about me and I am uncomfortable with it being posted. Deletion should be non controversial." [No personal opinion offered at this time.] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ETA: Professor Indjejikian has confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Keep. The subject is not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), at least not to my eyes, comparing his publication record to other economists at https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.hindex.html. and seeing no awards/editorships/named professorships. I must have been blind, because the subject clearly holds a named professorship as mentioned below. I don't see any book reviews for Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. either. But I think the deletion should be without predjudice - if the subject is deemed notable in the future, bring the page back. Qflib (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Is being the Robert L. Dixon Collegiate Professor of Accounting not a named professorship? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Let me look more carefully. Qflib (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The answer is yes, it definitely counts. I'm so embarrassed. Changing my vote to keep. See https://michiganross.umich.edu/faculty-research/faculty-excellence/named-professorships . Qflib (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
delete. There are thousands of named professorships across the country, at every University. A named professorship does not mean they are notable- just that a donor liked their research or teaching. A named professorship is not a reason to determine someone as notable. 2603:6080:A201:34CE:B04D:2FF2:54C4:1C39 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
And yet, it is. Please read the criteria at [WP:NPROF]]. Qflib (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: This person has 3900 citations per Gscholar and seems to have done development work in models/theories in accounting... I'm not sure if that is a large or small number of citations for their field of work. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    According to the source I mentioned above, he's not even in the top thousand economists in terms of his h-index, which is 24. Qflib (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    There seem to be a number of highly cited research papers dating to the 1990s, before the post-internet citation inflation: 734, 425, 408, with three further >=200 (all but one of these dates to the 1990s), and a total of thirteen papers with >=100 citations in GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I certainly think he's doing good work, but is that enough for C1 of NPROF? He's no Michael C. Jensen. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Based on the comment above and the comment below my query above, this individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. I'm saying tentative because I recognize the h-index concerns, and might change my mind on that basis. But I'm saying keep for now, first, because WP:PROF does indeed presume notability for full professors with named chairs, and second, because I don't really understand why the IP editor/page subject is saying that they want to have the page deleted. Normally, we do not allow page subjects to dictate our content unless unless there is something that violates the WP:BLP policy. In this case, the page appears to be entirely a positive reflection on the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Switch to Delete. I am basing this on the confirmation that the actual page subject really does want deletion, as well as on the fact that notability under the SNG is not a slam-dunk. Although the subject has a named chair, I think that the impact of his scholarly work is sufficiently borderline, given for example the h-index, that he is at best borderline-notable, and in such an instance, I don't want to insist on keeping the page against his wishes. (And even if notability means that we can keep the page, it doesn't mean that we must keep the page.) I think that the BLP-related concerns of a requested delete should outweigh the encyclopedic value of covering someone of only borderline interest to readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm going to need better evidence than IP editors geolocating to a completely different part of the US to treat this as a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In any case, that sort of request should only tilt the balance when we cannot come to a consensus on whether the subject meets our notability criteria. In this case, with a named chair at a major university, he unambiguously passes WP:PROF#C5, and I think his citation record is also good enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    David Eppstein Prof. Indjejikian has now confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, but the rest of my comment stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE even though subject probably passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. Even if NPROF is met, his notability is too borderline to overcome his request. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject is a collegiate professor, a type of professorship focussed on teaching, not research. C5 does not apply. Nor does the subject qualify as notable under any other part of WP:PROF. There is simply not the impact or notability within the field that is required to establish an academic as notable. Nothing said above, including the count of his online and offline citations, has proven notability. As has now been verified, the subject is also requesting deletion. arcticocean ■ 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe the subject is a borderline pass of NACADEMIC, but just borderline enough that we should respect a request for deletion by the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 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 Eighth Doctor Adventures. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Halflife (Michalowski novel)

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

No sources cited since the articles creation in 2006 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to EDAs, no non-fan sources anywhere. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. There's just no coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as reliable. The sheer volume of works that come out each year with the Doctor Who tie-in stories makes it very difficult for outlets to cover individual novels and stories. While that makes it awesome for fans (I'd love to see the Alien franchise put out more novels and stories like that, please!), it does mean that the stories and novels are unlikely to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 14 November 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. asilvering (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Tooth & Nail Records discography

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

I don't believe it passes WP:LSC WP:NLIST., because this is essentially a product "catalog" of a record label, which is a publisher. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Record label discography lists are useful and common. Since the label itself is notable, I'd argue the set of releases is notable. Since it is too large to roll into the main article, it makes sense to retain as a standalone list. glman (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawing my hasty thoughts for more reflection. glman (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Restoring my original opinion. glman (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Discographical information is encyclopedic and necessary for robust coverage of bands and labels. This is, unquestionably, a notable record label. The size of the list does mean it makes sense to have as a standalone article, though a merge is also an option. Chubbles (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment Just a refresher on a relevant discussion from the past Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_59#WP:NOTDIRECTORY,_NOTWEBHOST_for_companies_and_bios which didn't find consensus on exhaustive product catalog for publishers. So, simply splitting off as "product catalog of a publisher" standalone seems like getting around the loophole.*:Graywalls (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Lists of "product catalogs of publishers" are routinely notable if the "product" is art. We have, and certainly should have, (attempts at) full catalog lists of publishers like Warner Bros., Pixar, Square, and Motown. If the label is notable, we should cover its artistic output encyclopedically, and that includes discographical information. Chubbles (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    Please link to guidelines, or discussions corroborating this, thank you. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    We have never had debates about whether a Pixar movie or Final Fantasy game is a "product". Of course it is a product, but of course that is besides the point. Covering them here in the encyclopedia is covering art history. So, too, is covering Christian rock and emo and metalcore released by an impactful, significant, influential label. Chubbles (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lists such as these are useful for sure. However, they must still meet WP:NLIST by having significant coverage that discusses the discography as a group. Are these sources available? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment If we allow things on basis of one person saying "useful" there will be someone saying anything is useful. We'll end up with a "list of Signature Select condiments" and end up with an exhaustive list of their products with Safeway.com as the reference, or the "items sold at Home Depot" and end up with exhaustive list of SKUs. Some hole in the wall record labels are not held sacred over else and I think we shouldn't have product catalogs of this nature. This is going to cause a trend of starting a stand alone list for unacceptable contents to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a clear difference between a list of "condiments" or "items sold at Home Depot" and of albums. A discography of a record label that has existed for over 30 years, has major distribution deals, and has signed many notable artists is objectively not the same as a list of UPC items at the grocery store, nor is it the same as a minor indie label listing their releases. glman (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@CNMall41: well none of the ke.p proponents have commented with or added refs. Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I cannot find anything talking about the list as a group so left a vote. For the record, I do not advocate for keeping lists because of "userfulness." That is why we have categories, navigational boxes, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - Regardless of usefulness, lists must meet WP:NLIST where references need to detail the list as a group, not just the individual entries on the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    See below, multiple reliable sources discuss Tooth & Nail's output as a set. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Generally for publishers that do not have significant roles in the creation of creative works outside of funding, distribution and promotion, a catalog of their works is overkill, unless there is decent sourcing that discuss the whole of the catalog in a significant fashion. Eg we would never list every book published by Penguin, but we may do it for a smaller publisher that gained a reputation for promoting offbeat works. It is more appropriate to lists artists represented by the label even if the artist didn't exclusively release through thst label. Masem (t) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily agree that this should be the standard for the inclusion of a discography, but I'd argue that Tooth & Nail, in fact, meets it. The label had a specific vision for the kind of music and culture it was trying to promulgate, and there are identifiable production styles common to similar-genre bands who recorded for it. This article provides a starting point for understanding the label's profound impact on its milieu; many book-length resources on Christian rock and/or emo and metalcore music published after the late 2000s also inevitably come around to discussing the label in some detail. Chubbles (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. There are multiple sources discussing the impact of this label and noting amount of albums put out. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple sources discuss the impact and output of Tooth and Nail's discography. Here's three, and this wasn't an exahustive search: , , . Thus, the output of Tooth and Nail is independently notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    More examples: , "Tooth and Nail Records has a long and storied history in that scene, and if they had a Top Five Albums Produced listicle, I’d easily put The Everglow on there.", 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    These are all from the same media outlet, but are yet more examples: , , ,
    A standalone article could be written about the output of Tooth & Nail, so it definitely makes sense to have a list of their releases. Could cap it at releases which are notable with Wikipedia articles. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, here's the sources you asked for below.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how that would justify having both the article on the company, and exhaustive lit of its products, which is analogous to an exhaustive lift of every variety of Drano ever produced on its own list to get around WP:NOTADIRECTORY #6. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Should the List of Pixar films be deleted because it's an exhaustive list of that company's products?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per glman and Chubbles. I believe this list passes WP:NLIST since the subject record label is notable. In any case, most of the entries on the list are notable, and there are very few with red links.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    since the subject label is notable is not relevant, per WP:INHERITORG. Also see: WP:PRODUCT Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The topic - releases by the label - is also noteable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
There's not one source added to article, or offered to discussion since the listing. Just people asserting "it's notable". Where are the sources verifying the notability of the list of their collection as a whole? Graywalls (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per 3family6 this passes WP:NLIST. Additionally, discographies are often included in music reference works of varying kinds (indeed some academic books in the field of music are only discographies). Dismissing them under WP:NOTDIRECTORY seems incompatible with WP:5P1 given the published literature in this field.4meter4 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 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 14:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sergey Golovanov

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

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 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 İstanbul Güngörenspor. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Güngören M.Yahya Baş Stadium

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

Was tagged 15 years ago as uncited. Although the Turkish article has a few cites I don’t see what makes this small stadium notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 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 14:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Coastal Shipping Publications

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

Fails Notability requirements for an organization as it lacks any good reliable coverage (See Wikipedia:Notability (Organisations and companies)) and the only sources in the article are from the website of the company itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 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 13:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

List of awards and honours received by Suharto

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

Already in the main article of Suharto features the all the awards and honors that is featured in this separate article of the list of awards and honors he received. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORK. He was the grand Poobah and dictator of his country, so of course he was going to get every single medal awarded by his country, and even a few from his friends and supporters. This list borders on Propaganda and hagiography. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
He was the President of Indonesia, and every Indonesian president is automatically awarded the highest class of all medals and decorations. Therefore, listing all of his national medals seems unnecessary. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:28, 19 November 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. Consensus seems to have been reached, for an article that has doubled in size. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reeshma Nanaiah

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

Sources in article, and all sources found during BEFORE, are either passing mentions or interviews. Subject doesn't meet either NACTOR or GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:09, 13 November 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 13:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Poll Bludger

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

As the publisher of the site covered by this page, I would like to reactivate an earlier discussion concerning its potential deletion. I support this idea and the suggestion of absorbing its subject matter into a more general page about Australian political blogging. William Bowe (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Hi William. Have you declared your potential WP:COI on the article Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, I have now (I think). William Bowe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BIODELETE. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per arguments of original nom. J2m5 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep – The article currently is supported by 6 significant reliable sources; the previous nomination showed four more. The site's detailed election guides are a valuable resource for related Wikipedia articles. A nomination by the site's author raises concerns. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Out of those six sources, only one offers significant coverage of the Poll Bludger (The Age). The Fabian Society is not a reliable source and does not offer significant coverage. The ABC and Crikey sources do not offer significant coverage of Poll Bludger and are not independent, as those sources are related to Bowe's work writing for those publications. The two Conversation sources do not give significant coverage of the Poll Bludger either and are just interviews with Bowe. Steelkamp (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Also, the Poll Bludger being a valuable source itself does not have any bearing on whether this article should be deleted. Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    The WP:BIODELETE link from Steelkamp above notes: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete." So it wouldn't seem to be Wikipedia policy that a nomination for deletion by a site's author "raises concerns". William Bowe (talk) 12:08, 20 November 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Economics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Subject holds a named chair at a major university, passing NPROF C5. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. If consensus is that this named chair passes NPROF#C5, keep. However, I'm not fully convinced this chair at WSU passes. Specifically, Gramlich is the only person to have held this chair per the WSU Hoops Institute website. Personally, I'd lean towards delete unless other NPROF criteria (e.g. evidence of impact in the academic field) are shown in some capacity. Cyanochic (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The named chair part of PROF has been a bit muddied by the creation of a legion of, shall we say, second-tier named chairs, some of which I don't feel qualified to assess for prestige. Not my field but the GS profile is fairly healthy, with top citations 316, 204, 159, 148, 131 and a further two >100 (all fairly sparsely authored), but the h-index is only 17. Perhaps someone who knows more about citations in this field, and about chairs in the US, could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Week Keep: Academicians do not get all the media releases, but the subject having been a chair in a major university could easily pass for C5 WP:Prof; also has lot of cited publications in his field, which shows he has contributed much enough to the body of work. Kaizenify (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see there's debate as to whether his named chair at WSU is of sufficient prestige, but I'll note that Gramlich has held two named chairs, one at WSU and another at the University of Southern Maine. I think that's an NPROF#5 pass. He also passes NPROF#7a given that he is frequently quoted as an expert in major media outlets (see the Wall Street Journal, New York Times x2, Bloomberg, the Economist, and Cascade PBS). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 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 12:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Steven E North

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

I see little sign of GNG or other notability. Note that I removed some text for copyvio and naked promotion, including the source . (But this looks to me like a vanity piece, along the lines of Who's Who.) Noting that the tribunenewspaper.com source appears to be in a fake newspaper, or at least the main page is showing something generic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 13 November 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 12:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Krazy Maze

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this game or any indication that it could be notable. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created in 2008, it had just one source since then and currently has nothing to pass notability per Google search results indication. This game fails WP:NGAME. Mekomo (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • There should probably be an article on roll-and-moves and spin-and-move games including their history. This probably would get a mention. But I'm not seeing anything close to WP:N being met here. Hobit (talk) 23:21, 14 November 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 former Emmerdale characters. ✗plicit 12:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Samantha McCarthy

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

Delete Redirect as 4meter4 has suggested – The subject’s principal claim to notability from the external links in the article and my WP:BEFORE searches seems to be nine months, c. 70 episodes, as a relatively minor character on a UK soap opera, plus other one-off appearances. None of those are supported by decent secondary sources, so I suggest that the subject meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC. I also note that the article seems to have been almost perpetually unsourced. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:37, 13 November 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 12:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Kai Paulsen

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Created in 2006 and has never had a single source. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete tagged for notability since 2012, there are Kai Paulsens out there, but no Norwegian journalist, photographer, and computer collector Kai Paulsens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete this photojournalist per lack of sources since 2012. There are a number of similar names that come in Google search results but not this very subject. Narrowed the search with his photojournalism career but still not good came up for him. He fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 13 November 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 12:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Tehace

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

Tagged for notability for 12 years. Fails WP:NBAND. I could not find any reviews of their work in reliable sources (I searched for the band and album names, first in conjunction with review then with recenzja.) Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The most likely looking coverage here, the Winter Crusade Tour 2002 review from rockmetal.pl notes the band was brought on as a last minute substitution and that's pretty much all there is there. Everything else is passing mention or promo. Out there in the big bad world there's blogs, Facebooks, Bandcamp. So, yes, fails GNG, BAND. They do make some very interesting noises, I have to note... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 13 November 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! 09:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Senegal Music Awards

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

This article was created in 2009 by an WP:SPA, and has been unreferenced for c. 15 years. I have tried numerous searches to verify this award exists, but have been unable to find any sources via google, news searches, and also TWL searches including via Ebsco and ProQuest. No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. ResonantDistortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete And delete it from Category:African music awards while we're at it. I never realised that SENMA was a brand of high-grade monofilament fishing line, but we all live and learn. The Awards garner no SIGCOV beyond the odd announcement that someone has won one. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete not sure if such award truly exists or existed at any time because Google search did not produce any result to even show that this award ever exists. Search result only presented other awards events held in Senegal but not this very one. Failed WP:NAWARDS. Mekomo (talk) 13:51, 13 November 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 Hum TV#Comedy and sitcoms as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Mithu Aur Aapa

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

No significant coverage. Only reliable source on the page is DAWN and that is a simple mention. Nothing I can find online other than some social media and unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Being opposed to deletion, are you voting keep with a redirect as an ATD?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I am !voting Redirect (bolded word). And am opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw that part about being opposed to deletion so I was wondering if it was a keep or redirect. Thanks for the clarification this is a redirect !vote, not a keep vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Should have multiple sources instead of just one to establish notability. Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - Aired in 2015, therefore it can be difficult to find reference coverage pertaining to the show but still I managed to find certain links from Dawn and BBC which helps establishing WP:GNG.182.182.64.239 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)— 182.182.64.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage to pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 01:06, 17 November 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 programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Daily series. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Meri Behan Meri Dewrani

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

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Only verification taht it exists or at least existed. CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. The source nettv4u.com in the vote above is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES. No reliable sources with significant coverage can be found during the search. RangersRus (talk) 01:11, 17 November 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 programmes broadcast by Zee Zindagi#Former programming. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Madiha Maliha

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

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Can verify it exist(ed) but nothing significant for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete, flagged for more citations for ten years but nothing was added and there is nothing significant to add to pass notability now. This fails WP:NACTRESS. Mekomo (talk) 13:58, 13 November 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 see a consensus that a list of deaths is not necessary. If any editor wants this content to Merge into the main storm article, we can make that happen but the verdict is againt a standalone article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy

List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A vast majority of this article is unsourced. There's no real reason that this list should exist, as although Tracy was a horrific tragedy, it is nowhere near the most deadliest (Typhoon Yagi and Hurricane Helene of this year are more deadlier than Tracy). I'd propose it for deletion, however, it was declined. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - the specific event, and resultant deaths were of considerable trauma for the whole of Australia at the time, and this list has nothing to specifically existential comparison with other deadly cyclones. Australian weather events in the particular era were nowhere as deadly, or as circumstantially profound as it occurred in the Christmas New Year; also such surprise had been only happened on Darwin when it was bombed during the second world war. Of Australian disasters such as this one, and specifically the deaths, the actual numbers and identification of casualties is of considerable significance due to the length of time to resolve, and the potential for the number to be potentially in actuality never finalised due to suspicions about unidentified and unknown deaths.JarrahTree 06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history. The number death is a particularly contentious and prey to misinformation and conspiracy. This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere. The reference list could be expanded to support it better.--Tenniscourtisland (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    "This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history." This might be an argument for the notability of the main article on the storm itself (and even then, it's not really...it's the sources we have about it), but not for this list. "This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere." Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. This also rings a bit hollow since you're the creator and main contributor of this article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above reasons. Refs could be improved. Here's one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    This is not a reliable source and does nothing to establish notability of this as a standalone topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep (note:I removed the prod because sources are available and deletion is not a cleanup tool) The deaths involved with Cyclone Tracy has resulted in multiple government/coroner inquiries, with names added and removed at various points in time over the last 50 years. The list has changed each time the inquiries were completed so it may require restructuring to show each change deletion is not the way to improve this article. Every person and every change can be referenced, thoug some sources will be paper sourcing which is held in Northern Territory Library requiring on the ground sources. Gnangarra 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment my one is bigger than yours doesnt constitute deletion reasons either. Cyclone Tracy was avery unique cyclone, in timing, size, and intensity. Gnangarra 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the overall topic of the accounting for all the deaths might be noteworthy, it's already covered at the main article. This is just a context-less list of names and ages of the dead, which runs afoul of WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There's been a long tradition of not keeping lists like this, especially from natural disasters, and this one is no different. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The event itself is notable but the names of all the casualties are not. If any are notable, they should be mentioned in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per 35 and Ajf773. Only very, very notable events warrant lists of victims, e.g. Sinking of the Titanic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge into Cyclone Tracy. Some of the information is encyclopediac, some is not. But the main article is only 3,300 words and can handle the extra content. Thus the relevant information should be merged into the parent article. 12.69.202.75 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Striking vote by WMF-banned user. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Any notable fatalities can be included in main article. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Everything important can be in the main article. Bduke (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL is really all there is to say here. Tragic, horrific, but not a reason to list every name. Worldwide daily traffic accident deaths are the equivalent of loading up 6 A380s and flying them into the gound at top speed. We don't list them all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and just common sense. The quality of the information is never going to be that great; it's always going to be "... that we know about" once all the unsourced entries are struck, and thus incomplete. Deaths of notable persons and those whose deaths became notable through extended coverage can be mentioned in the main article, but sadly or not, large numbers of deaths are routine and expected when tropical storms hit, and the individual deaths are very rarely of note. Mangoe (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. While the circumstances are highly unfortunate, a page on this is seldom needed for any weather event, the only articles with logical exceptions to the NOTMEMORIAL rule are the 9/11 victim lists. EF5 14:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --ZZZ'S 14:36, 14 November 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 12:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Oluwatumininu

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

Page about a name, sourced to one unreliable (wiki) and very short source. I had redirected it to the one article for someone with this name, but this was reverted, so here we are. This AfD is to reinstate the redirect, not to delete it. This seems to be part of some major Nigerian project to have a separate article for every single Nigerian name, no matter the notability or the need for a disambiguation. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Disambiguations, and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose redirect of all the possible options, a redirect to Ayodele Awojobi (a person who has this as their middle name, is not particularly prominent, and is definitely not the primary topic) seems the worst. Keep, delete, soft-redirect to Wiktionary, merge to a list of Yoruba names; any would be better than the suggested redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that the one name-holder listed, Ayodele Awojobi, was male, and the first ref in his article gives his middle name as Olutuminu (though this could easily be a common abbreviated form, like "Chris" or "Pam"), so better sourcing is needed in both articles. PamD 08:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    • If the one listed isn't even named this (or we can't verify it), then of course it shouldn't redirect and should be deleted instead. Fram (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no sources I could find outside of baby name websites of questionable reliability. Since the one listed person has it as their middle name, a redirect would serve no practical purpose, especially since it is not even in the article title. I agree there does seem to be a lot of problematic editing within the sphere of Nigerian names lately. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete with no predjudice against re-ceation as a WP:SIA should notable people with the name show up. I haven't found any yet, unfortunately. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Oluwatumininu is not a common name of Awojobi, so, delete. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:36, 19 November 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 12:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

T. K. Kurien

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:BASIC. Another one of those accountant articles that doesn't tell us much except the positions he has held within his company. Considering that this and a lot of similar accountant articles were written more than a decade ago, many of them might have already retired. His so-called accomplishments are what any department head of any business firm might have also done. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 13 November 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 12:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

David Perry (computer specialist)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 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 Macalester College. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Macalester College Observatory

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

Beyond the single primary reference to the observatory's homepage, the only sources a WP:BEFORE search turned up were very small newspaper items, like this two-paragraph one for the opening, that lack enough detail to meet WP:SIGCOV. Sdkb talk 07:06, 13 November 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 Withdrawn‎ * Pppery * it has begun... 04:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Richmond Public Schools


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

out of date info,lack of secondary sources best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you don't understand the deletion process here on Wikipedia. An article being out of date is a reason to update it, not delete it. And the state of sourcing on any particular article is irrelevant. Deletion is not about the article at hand, but rather, about the subject of the article. Is it your position that there aren't secondary sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject in detail available for the largest school district in Virginia; a school district that levies taxes and has a publicly elected board? That's nonsensical. I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination, and read the instructions linked in the box near the top of this page prior to submitting any further AFD nominations. And if you aren't willing to do that, then I'd ask that an administrator close this as an improper nomination. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
ok, I saw that it was mostly reliant on a primary source with few secondary sources when I added this nomination
However you make a fair point it is the largest school district in the state of Virginia I myself graduated from Hermitage High School in 2019 so i am trying to have a neutral position on the articles subject that said i will withdraw this deletion when i get on my computer after work best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 00:59, 14 November 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. ErkDemon (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity


Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is purely WP:OR. All of the sources are used to contradict the theory of relativity by taking the quotes presented out of context. This clearly violates WP:NOT. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence is untrue -- the quotes are not out of context. Please provide an alleged example. And it's not attempting to "contradict the theory of relativity", it's identifying problems with Einstein's continuing 1915-onwards attempted implementation of a general theory, which he himself said failed to meet his objectives (relativity of inertia). In 1950, Einstein himself wrote that the two-stage structure used in 1916 wasn't defensible and proposed an alternative single-stage structure. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, here's a couple:
In the Intuition part of the Einstein's approach to physics, Lee Smolin is cited:
Smolin (1980): " Einstein was a storyteller. ... Einstein succeeded when he was able to formulate a principle or hypothesis about nature, which he, or sometimes others, later expressed in mathematical terms; he failed when he attempted to use mathematics as a substitute for insight into nature. "
And then the comment below is:
"In cases below, Einstein knew how he thought the universe should work, but was not always able to devise legitimate derivations to support his positions."
It looks like Smolin's interpreting how Einstein came up with his theory and how he had some roadblocks, but you're using this analysis to try to cast doubt on the theory.
And in the Cheerleading part of the Summary section, there's this quote:
MTW (1973): " No inconsistency of principle has ever been found in Einstein's geometric theory of gravity. "
And under that, there's speculation about the authors of it acting in bad faith.
I've noticed some other similar areas in the article. I'm not going to debate exactly what is being misinterpreted or how, but this article nitpicks Einstein and other scientists' statements and tries to change their meanings, making it OR. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 22:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons given by User:That Tired Tarantula: original research, quote mining, general crackpottery. Athel cb (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this type of article which is WP:OR written from the writer's perspective. I don't think it is crackpottery: the article raises interesting questions and I hope it will be published elsewhere. But Wikipedia follows opinion: it does not lead it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. Transwikiing to uncyclopedia would also be reasonable if that’s feasible. McYeee (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. *gestures vaguely at Brandolini's law* Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Brandolini's Law is why the article is so long. Any fool can BS and declare "The 1916 framework has no problems!", but opposing that claim by documenting even just the main documented failures requires substantial time and effort. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR article that does not fit with the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. Also food for crackpotery WP:FRINGE.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you could class Einstein's suggested revised architecture for GR, presented in Scientific American in 1950 as "fringe". But I don't think Einstein should be classed as a crackpot. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree that this article appears to be mostly WP:OR. Although the editor cites numerous sources, the quotes have been taken out of context. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Untrue, the quotes are in context. Please supply an alleged example where they are not. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete This is obvious WP:OR that is not appropriate encyclopaedia content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Snow delete as a transparent example of the kind of "physicists are all wrong about physics" screed that we invented the WP:NOR policy to prohibit. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
But the person who announced that the 1916 architecture was now indefensible was Einstein himself (1950). If Einstein was right that it was not appropriate to base a general theory on a non-GR-compatible foundation (as he had done in 1915/1916), then that would seem to explain why the 1915/1916 version of GR has had so many problems and inconsistencies.ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The title of the article is a signal that this is not a summary of sources but a point of view essay. Primary source quotes are wrapped in unsourced personal commentary with consistently negative editorial comments. The overall article places undue emphasis on minor issues of no concern to mainstream physics, eg relationship to special relativity. The article dismisses works like Misner, Thorne and Wheeler "Gravitation" as "cheerleading". It weirdly presents amazing consequences of Einstein's work as errors, eg a section on "Incompatibility with classical field theory" (so?) and "Incompatibility with modern cosmology" (a field created by the 1916 paper). Johnjbarton (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
No, modern cosmology (in the sense of a spatially closed, expanding universe with Hubble redshifts) was emphatically not created by the 1916 paper. The 1916 paper's cosmology was flattish, pseudo-Euclidean, infinite and unbounded, time-symmetrical and was constant with time.
The revised 1917 version of the theory arbitrarily changed the geometry of space to be spatially spherical, in order to fix the relativity of inertia, but in order to keep the cosmology time-symmetrical and static, Einstein introduced Lambda to cancel the effects of long-distance cumulative curvature. The 1917 theory had no Hubble redshift, no expansion or contraction, and was characterised by deSitter as "cylindrical".
Einstein's was initially one of the main voices against modern Hubble cosmology. When Lemaitre suggested an expanding universe, Einstein told him that his (Lemaitre's) physics was "abominable", and Einstein refused to accept expanding-universe cosmology until the early 1930s, when it became clear that the Hubble result was here to stay, leaving Einstein no choice but to agree that it should be predicted by his theory after all ... the alternative being to accept that his theory was invalidated by the Hubble result. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: "The overall article places undue emphasis on minor issues of no concern to mainstream physics, eg relationship to special relativity."

Then you don't understand the 1916 architecture, or its dependencies. The reason why Einstein's 1916 structure is incompatible with QM is its SR component. If we honestly didn't care about preserving the "SR" side of GR, we could make GR compatible with QM tomorrow: we could embrace Einstein's 1950 suggestion, invoke Hawking's 2014 suggestion of reconciling GR with QM by making horizons relative rather than absolute (which requires non-SR equations), and embrace a relativistic acoustic metric (which requires non-SR equations) rather than a Minkowski-based metric. We could have theory of quantum gravity in that sense up and running in maybe a few months. The reason we don't go down this path is that it's generally considered that losing special relativity is too high a price to pay for a solution. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
You seem to know a lot about these topics. But Wikipedia is not about your knowledge, opinions, or points of view. It is a summary of published analysis, not a venue for your analysis. Rather than try to tell "The Truth", I hope you might contribute to the encyclopedia in ways that match its goals. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm arguably the expert on this subject ... but that may rule me out from contributing, on the grounds of bias! A decade or two ago, I did get invited to to join the WP physics steering group, due to the quantity of physics articles I'd authored here, but there was at least one of the existing members that I wouldn't have wanted to be professionally associated with under any circumstances, so I declined.
This was an experiment. I might swing by again in another ten years, to see if anything's changed. See you in 2035. Have a nice decade. ErkDemon (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • KEEP. The factual content of the article is accurate and supported by sources, and has reference value. If someone wants to know what the basic "problem issues" are with Einstein's GR, this article tells them. There might be a way of keeping the references and basic information, but rewriting the thing to address the stylistic issues. If the article disappears, that can't happen.
  • DELETE - It's been a week now, all votes apart from mine have been for deletion, this is a democracy (kinda), so ... deletion it is. ErkDemon (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


I knew when writing the article that it would be a challenge, and that it would probably need to rely to some extent on WP:IGNORE to justify its existence.

  • The article is very long, but this because there is so much that is problematic with Einstein's pre-1950 architecture. A simple listing with references would still be quite long.
  • The article mostly cites primary sources. In an ideal world, the physics community would have already produced many papers addressing the documented problems (both solved and outstanding) with Einstein's system, and we could then write an article summarising those reviews. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, and no such reviews seem to exist. I would suggest that the reason why there seem to be no proper peer-reviewed reviews of the GR1916 structure is because it is not possible to write a review without the result being negative, and because nobody in the community is willing to publicly be negative about the 1916 theory for fear of being labelled an "anti-Einstein crackpot" by their colleagues.

If I'm wrong about this, and there do exist serious analytical studies of Einstein's system that conclude that the thing is geometrically valid, and that it somehow manages to simultaneously both support the SR relationships and the GPoR, then please, by all means add a section to the end of the article with references and quotes, as a counterpoint. I'll be genuinely interested to see what you can come up with. However, I should point out that in thirty years of asking enthusiastic supporters of GR1916 why they are so convinced that the 1916 system works, and what reviews they've seen that support their deeply-held belief that it works as geometry, nobody's ever been able to give me a supporting reference. ErkDemon (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, this article is being XfD'd because it is original research. This is just not what Wikipedia is supposed to be used for. WP:IGNORE is good for when there's small, specific things that would make it harder to create encyclopedic content, but it should not be used to justify an entire article that clearly violates the purpose of WP. There's also another article about this topic. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 21:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The proper response to a non-encyclopedic essay is not to add a "counterpoint". The proper response is deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. The author even acknowledges that the physics community has not written any secondary reviews of the "problems" with GR and thus he has to rely on primary sources for this article. That's literally the definition of OR! JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: per the reasons given in the nomination. TarnishedPathtalk 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: @ErkDemon I suggest you go write a blog, publish a book, start a podcast—whatever it is you think necessary to make the world aware of the issues you think exist. Wikipedia is just not the right platform for this sort of original research. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Disregarding the already well-argued WP:OR and WP:NOT issues, it is arguable that this page lacks a distinct reason to exist in the first place. A summary of scientist's counterpoints to Einstein's framework could easily have been condensed and included in the General Theory of Relativity page as a subsection. TWorkman (talk) 21:38, 19 November 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. While this article might seem to be borderline regarding notability, I see no support here for Deletion which makes a Keep closure more understandable. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Computing, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith where a brief, sourced mention is likely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, but improve. As "Joseph A. Lauritis, C.S.Sp Endowed Chair in Teaching and Technology", he pretty clearly meets WP:PROF criterion 5. He's also won a Fullbright Fellowship, which (my instinct is) is enough for criterion 2. The Rowling stuff certainly helps, too. (Here is a profile in the Chronicle of Higher Education, for example.) And he's authored several books, so he may meet WP:AUTHOR, but I've not looked closely. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. With apologies to User:J Milburn but just having a chair definitely does not qualify under #C5, it has to be a very major chair as discussed in the notes. Also getting a Fulbright is definitely not notable enough to qualify for anything by itself. The only reason I have a Weak is because the topics he has in GS are low citations topics. If there were truly independent awards then I might change to Keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Changed to Abstain, since notability is now being based upon WP:BASIC whereas previously I voted to disagree with the comments by Josh Milburn that he passed WP:NPROF. I don't have enough experience with the other classes of WP:NOTABILITY compared to others in this discussion, hence I am now abstaining. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify what parts of the notes you're referring to? 5a refers to sourcing; 5c is about the institution. 5b clarifies that the chair in question 'can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments', but that applies here; he was a tenured full professor before being given the chair. As for Fullbright: my reading of criterion 2a was that a Fullbright Fellowship (which is surely 'independent'?) would presumably count. But, in any case, these things all point towards notability, and certainly (in my view) push back against the 'notable for one event' claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
      A good way to judge awards is by who gets them, how selective they are and how much attention a university gives them. Everyone from junior to emeritus can get a Fulbright; there are about 900 faculty scholars per year, and top universities do only a nominal press release and nothing else. (The statement about how uni admin considers them is both personal experience and by asking several others.)
      You can compare this to NAE/NAS, where in all the cases I know the academic received much, much more from the admin, justifiably.
      N.B., David Eppstein has already responded about #C5 in detail. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this chair does not pass #C5. As described here (as linked from Douglas Harper), it funds someone to be responsible for "for integrating technology and teaching in Duquesne’s classrooms". That is, it is the kind of chair given ex officio to people who do a job, as a reward or slush fund for doing that job, not the kind of chair described in #C5 given for outstanding scholarship. He may nevertheless be notable in other ways, such as #C1, but not that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: In addition to the profile I posted above, I note this Washington Post article, which opens with 'Until recently, Patrick Juola was known primarily as the man who outed J.K. Rowling as the author of “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” a book she penned under another name. // Now Juola can add another high-profile outing to his resume.' It's about Juola's work on the origins of Bitcoin, meaning that Juola has received significant press coverage for at least two research contributions. (And he's a full professor with a named chair. And he's won a Fullbright Fellowship.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe the subject meets WP:PROF by citations. In particular he appears 5th in GS for "stylometry", 10th for "text analysis" and in the top 40 for "digital forensics". I'm seeing fairly highly cited papers that long pre-date the Rowling work, some of which also pre-date recent citation inflation. J Milburn's comment immediately above suggests this is not a one-event situation. Agree that reviews should be sought for his books. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Looking at JSTOR, did not find book reviews, but a chapter in Close Reading with Computers by Martin Paul Eve (JSTOR jj.8305917.7) appears to contain quite a bit of discussion of his opinions, and there also look to be significant mentions in JSTOR 23025619 and arguably JSTOR 26821537,JSTOR 27073814,JSTOR 26451329 as well as possibly some others not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have tidied the article a little, adding references to six decent secondary sources; a profile in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is entirely about Juolo; pieces in National Geographic and Smithsonian that discuss his work at some length (there are lots more like this: Times, Telegraph, Scotsman, etc.); and a piece in The Washington Post that is entirely about his work and (crucially) not about Rowling. Other articles about his research that aren't about Rowling (and, indeed, predate the Rowling story) come from two Pittsburgh broadsheets. Again, these are entirely devoted to Juolo and his work. I suggest that this is enough to show that Juolo meets the notability requirements for biographies at WP:BASIC, even if (as some people here argue) he doesn't meet the requirements at WP:PROF. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 16 November 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! 05:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Free, Indiana

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

A rail point marked by a grain elevator complex which has changed over the years but which has nothing else around it. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Locale is only notable at a local level.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 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! 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Foresman, Benton County, Indiana

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

This is an example of why I'm inclined to take Baker calling a place a "village" with a grain of salt. This is indeed a rail point, but there's no sign of a settlement or for that matter any place it could have been. There is one business, a concrete plant, which replaced a different ag/industrial facility sometime in the 1960s/'70s. Other than that, nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 13 November 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.

In the future, LibStar, inform the article creator when you nominate an article for deletion. This is aided by using Twinkle to tag pages for AFDs. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Kimberly Browne

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. An unremarkable career. 3rd source is her employer, 2nd source is a media release. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - does not appear to pass WP:GNG - Google News apparently only turns up false positives. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not seeing a notification of the creator, MurielMary, who might be able to explain why they believed notability requirements were met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 16 November 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 04:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Campus Maps

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

The only secondary coverage available is from campus papers, which don't contribute to notability under NORG's heightened audience requirements. Sdkb talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, and Computing. Sdkb talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient sourcing to establish notability. --Here2rewrite (talk) 03:38, 17 November 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 Campus card. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

List of campus identifications in mobile wallets

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

This list fundamentally fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is sourced only to individual universities or to the technology platforms that provide the mobile wallets, both primary sources. The best case for WP:NLIST would invoke the secondary coverage in dubious-reliability sources like CNET (generally unreliable at RSP) and TechCrunch ("may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability" at RSP), but even setting aside the reliability concerns, these articles mention only a few institutions rather than discussing them all as a group. Lastly, at the risk of making a prediction, the long-term prospects for this list are poor, since presuming this technological trend continues, eventually nearly every college will be part of it. Sdkb talk 03:43, 13 November 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 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fargo, Benton County, Indiana

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

According to the topos, a former passing siding; now, just a name by the tracks in a field. No sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 13 November 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. ✗plicit 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Shin Yung-kyoo

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily notable and has GA potential as captain of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team, a recipient of the title People's Athlete (honoring the greatest North Korean sportspeople in history - - satisfying WP:ANYBIO), being one of ~five players focused on in a full-length book in North Korea (ref 1), being considered a national sports hero (per The Game of Their Lives) and a very prominent member of the national team with freaking 97 caps. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Not only was a book covering him written in North Korea, but at the National Library of South Korea there's a 240-page book on Legend of Destiny: Shin Young-gyu and Park Seung-jin who wrote the myth of the 1966 England World Cup quarterfinals from 2020! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per BeanieFan11; really poor nomination. GiantSnowman 19:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 01:27, 14 November 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. ✗plicit 02:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ryu Song-gun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 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 00:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

DesignTech Systems

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this. A search for sources found company's involvement in a skill development scam but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 13 November 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 Lezhin Comics. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

4 Cut Hero

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

    #Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

    (Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

    '4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

    (Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"
    But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 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. This discussion has been relisted twice with no new participation so I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. There are editors arguing that existing sources and new ones brought to this discussion are sufficient to establish notability and editors who disagree with them. I anticipate this article making a return trip to AFD but please wait a few months, not days, before doing so. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 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. With no prejudice against renomination. That page should not have been blanked. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Francis W. Wynkoop

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:

    fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability

    Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.
    Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.
    Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • ’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    The problem is even if WP:ARCHITECT is met, WP:GNG isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Please show me where WP:NBIO requires a person to meet GNG even if one of the additional criteria is met. (It doesn’t.) The SNG provides alternative paths to notability for biographies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    I quote: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Not meeting the GNG is an excellent reason not to have a stand-alone article on someone, especially if there's only one work they're considered notable for, as they can be discussed briefly in that article instead of having a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Local architect that designed non-notable structures. We have confirmation of this, but architects all over the world design things. These buildings aren't on the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they seem to have any special association with any historical items. The Butterfly House was never nominated for any sort of award and it's not a registered historic structure. We have simply a architect that designed interesting buildings, neither of which is terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 November 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. This discussion has No consensus being divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and others who advocate a Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Attractions

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Elvis Costello. The key thing here is the album they released on their own, which despite the nominator's statement, isn't even mentioned in the Costello article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.
    In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    The E Street Band has a separate article even tho never being credited as such on any albums nor having released any album on their own. Attractions members sustained careers as session musicians, as did E Street Band members, and live backing musicians, which E Street Band members did to a lesser extent. 2600:E001:1AD:6400:79E4:6995:B836:A675 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The E Street band have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, and have lots of coverage and articles specifically about them.
    The Attractions just don't have that level of notability in the same way DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    The Attractions were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003. Velociraptor888 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    No - Elvis Costello & The Attractions were. The E Street Band was inducted as a standalone entity, separate from Springsteen's induction. The Attractions were inducted as an extension of Costello. We need to demonstrate individual notability separate from Costello, and this induction doesn't even slightly prove that DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: as per Milowent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: This band's music separate from Costello may not be notable, but they can still demonstrate notability through the GNG. They have been called one of the best backing bands in rock history, backed up by three citations, alongside other sources like this, clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    All of their significant coverage is about their relationship with Costello. We can add a section to Costello's page related to the band where there are points worthy of inclusion.
    There's no point relying on WP:GNG when we have subject-specific guidelines in WP:BAND that show more specifically what the requirements are for a band to have their own article. They'd have to demonstrate that notability separate from their work with Costello DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @DeputyBeagle I’m not strongly opposed to a merge, but there is never “no point relying on the GNG”. SNGs are an alternative route to demonstrating notability, alongside the GNG. You’ll notice that WP:BAND #1 is the GNG. And the band only has to meet one of these criteria, not all of them.
    The question now is one of WP:PAGEDECIDE, whether we should keep or merge. I do not see anything at WP:BAND that helps us make that decision, so based on my own judgement I believe that there is more than enough sourced content for a standalone article. Merging would add more clutter to the already long article on Elvis Costello. But reasonable folk may disagree, and to me it’s no big deal either way.
    Next time, when you’re not actually gunning for the deletion of an article, but simply want a merge, you should start a merge discussion (WP:MERGE) or BOLDly do it yourself rather than come to AfD. You might get less participation that way, but folks will spend much less time arguing about the GNG and NBAND (since deletion isn’t on the table), and much more time discussing which way of organizing the content is best for readers. You might even get no participation, in which case you can just do it! Toadspike [Talk] 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't want a merge, I wanted a delete but I've accepted that a merge is more popular than a delete here, and I've no problem with a merge.
    The GNG always applies yes, but the SNG gives more specific advice pertinent to this situation.
    The short and the long of it is that there is no sigcov about the Attractions as a seperate body from Costello. There's only one article in the references that's specifically about the Attractions as opposed to being an article about Costello that references the Attractions. Even then it's about their work with Costello with no reference at all to Mad About the Wrong Boy, their only independent work. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not important whether or not participants consider this subject notable or not. It depends on whether or not reliable sources can help establish notability. But I see only a little discussion here of the quality of the sourcing. Can we get a source analysis to see if there is enough SIGCOV to warrant a separate article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 13 November 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! 09:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Peruri 88

Peruri 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article generally does not meet the WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG guidelines. Had the building been constructed or been under construction, it might have qualified under these guidelines, as it would be the tallest building in Jakarta and likely attract substantial coverage. Unfortunately, it remains only a design proposal from 2012, and 12 years later, there have been no further updates or developments on this plan. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note that we had a look for sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Peruri 88. Also note that, at least for the coordinates of the purported site, very recent Google StreetView imagery shows no evidence of the site being cleared (there's still commercial and residential structures, apparently occupied), never mind construction. Ckfasdf has informed user:M R Karim Reza, the article's creator (who remains active on en.wikipedia), of the deletion.-- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Finlay McWalter: This is the latest Google Street View image, dated August 2024, showing no signs of construction or site clearing. The proposed location is still in use by Peruri as their office and facility Ckfasdf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to a potential compilation of planned but either on-hold.., or otherwise never constructed projects in Jakarta, or something similar, rather than delete, there are probably a lot more there, waiting to join the list, and in a collection it would be adequately notable as a phenomenon, rather than in single sites as never started projects or stalled proposals.JarrahTree 11:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no evidence that this is anything more than an unfunded paper project. As such, there are no real independent sources and no substantial coverage. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If proposing a Merge or Redirect, please spell out the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without a proposed target article, this article can not be Merged. Please identify one if this is your desired outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: I don't see anything we can merge this too. It was expected to be finished by 2020, but here we are almost 5 years later and still nothing. Interesting bit of local trivial perhaps, but nothing we need an article about. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Building projects as a rule shouldn't have articles until some actually starts digging, and all evidence is that this didn't happen. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 13 November 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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks