Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 29	October 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Sook

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. A before found nothing. Coverage seems all about contract. scope_creep^Talk 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This in Variety [1] helps, rest are confirmation of his contract. Not lots of coverage, but good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (for now) to Nexstar Media Group Surprisingly bare-bones article for the founder/CEO one of the largest broadcast networks and media groups, but he's a more 'silent' CEO so coverage seems to be limited to press releases and events where he does want to be public facing. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of untapped sources for improvement of this page. [2] would be high on my list and is from 2005. I've tapped coverage of Sook in improving especially WDKY-TV, KOCB, and WYOU. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both [1] and [2] seems to be interview style article. Ref [1] is definently an interview. Ref [2] looks as though was he has said is just lifted verbatim. I'm not confident in any of them, so I won't be closing the Afd. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Economic Alliance

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

This group received some coverage when it first launched in 2018, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist. Since 2018, they've received very little in-depth coverage. There's some in-depth coverage of its leadership, but most articles I could find only mention BEA in passing. An editor removed my PROD on this article because they found a "recent NYT article that refers to organization's recent activity," which they said "addresses the issue" I had. There's only one problem: the NYT article in question is about Wes Moore, and there is exactly 1 sentence about BEA. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:N test of WP:SUSTAINED with a few stories upon launch and no WP:SIGCOV since. Subsequent coverage is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It should go without saying that this organization cannot inherit notability from its members. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Wikipedia Library turns up sources that look promising. Recent coverage, even. It will take a while to go through but this looks like a case of insufficient WP:BEFORE. That said, the article is in terrible shape and is need of rewriting. Let's do it. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Could easily close as no consensus if only going by the considerable number of responses both to keep and delete, but enough keep comments include clearer, more thorough analysis of the quality of the sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. The only significantly notable thing associated with JUNIPER is "goblin mode", which already has its own Wikipedia page (WP:BLP1E). Most information about JUNIPER could be added to that page. JUNIPER herself is not very notable. Many of the sources used as references mention her only in passing (usually because she responded to a more prominent person's post online) or are primarily about goblin mode. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I have become more experienced here, I am more open to a deletion. I knew this would come eventually, because it was never properly addressed in the other two AfD's. The article hinges on goblin mode for notability a bit, but it should be kept in mind that she created/popularized other memes, and had added notability after her suspension. That's not just one event. Still, this article could easily be deleted and separate memes and events go to their own parent articles, simply referencing her. Junlper herself does only have a few articles about her, so I'm open to any outcome.
Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to note, I do not think JUNIPER's other publicised things (her suspension and the Snickers dick vein meme/hoax) represent anything notable, certainly not to the extent of goblin mode. The Snickers dick vein hoax had a Wikipedia page which was subsequently merged with several other articles before eventually redirecting back to JUNIPER's, which makes its lack of notability for Wikipedia standards apparent. Its just an internet meme, not every internet meme is notable just for being popular or having an internet-culture website write an article on it. If that were true, Chris-Chan would have had a Wikipedia page long ago. Same goes for her suspension, not very notable and lacked sustained coverage, and most coverage it got was not focused on her specifically. Macxcxz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example you chose is something of an exception. It is a BLP issue and not a notability issue. Toadspike [Talk] 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the obvious BLP issues, any Chris Chan article might qualify for a WP:G10 deletion even. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Bad example I suppose. Macxcxz (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the Snickers dick vein probably should not have its own page per WP:NOPAGE despite reliable source coverage. However, the bar for inclusion of individuals does not require them to be responsible for multiple things that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only significant coverage of them and/or their work in reliable sources. For example, Junlper's suspension would not meet WP:NEVENT and should not have its own page, but the reliable sources that did cover it lend to her own notability. The latest article discussing her suspension in any amount of depth was NBC in January 2024. Since she went viral in February 2022 for the goblin mode tweet, that is almost two years of reliable source coverage, which seems enough to avoid deletion under WP:SUSTAINED. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person is not notable. I agree with the reasoning of nomination. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this person is not notable. Has not accomplished anything substantial. Looks more like a personal blog than a serious article 47.184.171.15 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I usually hate deleting articles but I feel that it should be done here. A good portion of the sources (Business Insider, The Focus, tweets, Forbes contributors) are unreliable; Outlook India and News 18 have been known to publish misleading articles in the past. Some others (Vox, Buzzfeed News) are interviews and therefore can't be used to establish notability. From what I've read in previous deletion discussions, Ms Junlper, has expressed wishes that this article be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider is marked as generally reliable for culture topics such as this one at WP:RSP. The Focus/Forbes contributor sources have now been removed, and the tweets are only used when the tweets are discussed in the article or under acceptable WP:BLPSELFPUB purposes. The guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA for Outlook India is primarily about hidden content, which is almost certainly not the case here, though the article subject is only mentioned in passingare multiple other sources that are far more reliable and in-depth. The previous deletion discussion happened amidst her ongoing controversy over the Twitter ban and seemed to indicate that she was indifferent about the page staying. Given that things have quieted down for her since then, do you have an updated statement from her on this? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A random shitposter on Twitter should not get a Wikipedia article. This is the very definition of non-notable. 73.225.173.79 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: non-notable person, all sources are either unreliable or interviews (which usually aren't counted as references), article is written like a personal blog or a Wikipedia parody. The person has done nothing to be included in an online encyclopedia. Necatorina (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the sourcing in my comment below, but in respect to interviews from reliable sources, it depends on factors such as the split between interview/non-interview content (i.e. a detailed introductory section vs. jumping straight to questions) and how probing the questions are (i.e. factchecking vs. softballs). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject is non notable and is article is just riding off the "goblin mode" thing Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.

With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet ~~WP:SIGCOV~~WP:BASIC.

As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I'd raise an eyebrow over a third nomination in a year but the first two were misfires so it is fair enough to raise it again. That said, I think Patar knight has it right. She makes it over the line for Notability. There are multiple sources covering her for multiple things. Yes, some of those things are silly but that's not what matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on the sources: There is the 2022 dedicated interviews by Buzzfeed News and Business Insider and the Rolling Stone article. That's three very solid sources where the coverage is substantial and primarily about her or her activities. OK, but is it sustained? It's not as intense as 2022, but we have The Messenger and The Advocate covering her in 2023 and NBC News in 2024. I think this is more than enough. Notability is not temporary. DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This looked like a unanimous Delete but there are two recent Keep arguments that should be responded to but those seeking a Deletetion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We reckon notability by coverage, yes? seems to exist here. If anything, merge Goblin mode to this page. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goblin mode itself should also probably be nominated for deletion. 50.35.207.155 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep same reasoning as Hyperbolick. I went into this thinking I’d vote delete going off everyone else’s comments / this being the third? Fourth? Deletion attempt… but there are an absolute ton of reliable secondary sources. I still think it’s ridiculous that news outlets etc are paying her and her shitposting so much attention, but they are, so… Rolling Stone profile is what pushed it well over the edge for me. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. Reading the previous AFD, it seems like some editors, especially newer editors do not believe the article subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. But we don't make these decisions based on our own opinions (or that of the article subject) but whether or not reliable sources establish notability. So, a source review, which one editor arguing for a Keep has done, would be most helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My position is basically the same as the other people who have said it should be kept. Notability is based on the reliability of sources, and Junlper definitely has a lot of reliable sources who have discussed her. Daemonspudguy (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a person is not notable.Gauravs 51 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, repeating my position from the last AFD that on balance there seems to be just enough sources to scrape past GNG in my view. Obviously this passes WP:BLP1E as well. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2018

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

Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. No need for a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2019

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

Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. It does not need to be a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2020–21

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

Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. No need for a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2022

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

Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this before. SPLITLIST is not a notability guideline. Can you point out the references that talk about this as a whole? This vote is a continued fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. No need for a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khatuna Lagazidze

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

BLP of a political scientist of doubtful notability. The only source that might get it over the line is the biographical dictionary of Georgia, but that looks more like an online Who’s Who rather than a DNB. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Han Jiet

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

This biography of a Malaysian YouTuber fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are tabloid coverage of his engagement (excluded for notability per WP:SBST) and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I couldn't find any other qualifying WP:SIGCOV in my WP:BEFORE search, but given the language barrier happy to revise my opinion if SIGCOV is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A forum program by him invited deputy ministers had received coverage on newspaper headline.^[1] His nickname always mentioned after the channel name 'BBK Network' in interviews of figures, such as this one with a movie director.^[2] Despite on significant coverage, his channel seems not less notable than Keluar Sekejap with assumed smaller audience by locality, since only Malaysian Chinese watches it. Although most matters were attached to the channel, but as shown those news articles, his name was always directly referred to.

References

^ "政府太干预或国人须忍耐经济专家政治人物经改不同调". 南洋商报 [Nanyang Siang Pau] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-03-17. Retrieved 2024-09-27.
^ "《五月雪》送审四次张吉安曝电检通过关键". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-07-18. Retrieved 2024-09-27.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ong Kai Jin (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links include WP:SIGCOV of Lee/Lucas; at most a passing WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find social media and performances on facebook, I don't see notability with what's given now either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Bachelor (American TV series)#Seasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Womack

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

May have been the Bachelor twice, but unsure whether that's enough to make him notable or keep the article. Also, he neither won $1 million on any other contest nor was a contestant of The Bachelorette. From what I read, he kept his profile low since his Bachelor appearances. Should be redirected to The Bachelor (American TV series) if not deleted. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Georgia (U.S. state). George Ho (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only for disambiguation purposes as the two seasons throw the wrench into an obvious redirect to his season like most other suitors/suitresses in the series. I'd like to see more chime in about if we can come up with a better solution. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bachelor (American TV series)#Seasons, as he was on two seasons. The only reference is a listicle titled "Top 10 Worst Bachelors", which is clearly insufficient. [3] is the best reference I could find, which is insufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Bachelor (American TV series)#Seasons. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phytocosmetics

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

Is there any reason that this should not be a sentence in cosmetics and an entry on Wiktionary?

It is likely to remain a source of stealth advertising and OR. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Reference 1 looks non-RS (I don't read Portuguese, but the page layout is not encouraging); the other references appear to be bogus or at the very least improperly cited and formatted. There are real sources on the subject out there: [4], [5], [6], but they're swamped out by SEO garbage and sites trying to sell something, and it would take work and a discerning eye to write a good article on the topic, and this one isn't good. The topic may be significant but the article needs far too much work to keep as is. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose draftify. There is no point to draftifying a seven year old article! No one ever works on draftified articles for old ones. No one. I haven't searched for sources, but this seems like a hard topic to write a full article on. Maybe worth a mention somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, there's 3 hits in Gscholar directly talking about it, [7], [8], [9]. I thought we were discussing deletion, I mean draft if you want, but it's a notable topic. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A notable topic need not have its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No inline sources, what is there is poor at best, there's 3 hits in Gscholar is not a reason for a stand-alone article, and also WP:TNT on the article in its present form. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is terrible and I think there is an excellent case for TNTing any article where no one has bothered to explain what the subject even is over the course of years. But that is not the deletion policy. Sources don't have to be in an article to show it is notable, they only need to be shown to exist. Phytochemistry is a thing, and phytocosmetics are a suitably large part of that subject that they spawn multiple textbooks. E.g. Botanicals: A Phytocosmetic Desk Reference (1998) or Phytocosmetics and Cosmetic Science (2021). This is not a delete. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion, but otherwise I'd support it. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we don't have to give this subject its own page. Is there a case for merging with Phytochemistry? All we really have beyond phytochemistry is the dictionary definition: phytocosmetics is concerned with the cosmetic properties of botanicals. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a sentence or two to cosmetics per nom. Definitely do not redirect or merge to phytochemistry, that is very different. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Malayalam films of 2022#October–December as a sensible proposed ATD that was not rejected by any of the participants here. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sholai

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

Fails WP:NFO. Article was WP:DRAFTIFY'd yesterday but the creator immediately moved it back to mainspace. The creator is now blocked for disruptive editing elsewhere. RachelTensions (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is this a school or a movie [10]... Regardless, this mess of an article isn't ready for mainspace and the sourcing is just not there. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Article claims it was released two years ago, but all I can find about it online in English or Malayalam (ഷോലൈ) is the usual breathless WP:NEWSORGINDIA fluff about the poster release, the trailer release, etc, and not a single review. No obvious target for redirect or merge. Wikishovel (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Malayalam_films_of_2022#October–December: it is listed there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Again one of those tv serial pages with poor to unreliable sources with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It fails every indicator of notability. Piscili (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not only does it fail every indication of notability, it has every appearance of being a LLM generated text. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club players. Owen× ☎ 22:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sylvester

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this cricket player who played in one first-class match in 2022. Per WP:NCRICKET: "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level ... may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is certainly patchy - lots of Second XI so there's some there, but the sourcing isn't great and I can't find anything easily that can really be added. Looks like a fairly obvious case for redirecting to List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club players until we get some proper coverage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blue Square Thing on this point, much as I'm loathed to consign any county-level player to list membership. However, there seems to no press coverage which might justify the existence of a separate page in this instance. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club players as an WP:ATD. As per above, doesn't look to be WP:GNG passing coverage to warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Alshikh

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches produce no WP:SIGCOV. If secondary sources are found please ping me. Demt1298 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Switzerland. Demt1298 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redman Evans

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this footballer. All I found was this transactional announcement with a few sentences of coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 22:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodos F.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG. Search results did not show WP:SIGCOV. If SIGCOV is found please ping me. Demt1298 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Demt1298 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 22:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rit Harrison

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like WP:1E. Most mentions I've seen are trivial/statistics. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly borderline, but I disagree that the sourcing is entirely trivial; the two bios that I can access in Google Books are short but in my opinion do provide WP:SIGCOV. If anyone happens to have access to the Arcidiacono book, it would be helpful to know if there is more information on page 211 as the index indicates. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a scan of it from NYPL. No clue how long it'll take, though- hopefully I'll get it in a reasonable amount of time. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got the scan. There was two pages that mentioned Harrison. The first was one sentence among a list of other substitute short-term players for the team:
The next short-term substitute to don a New Haven uniform was Rit Harrison, who played his only major league game on May 20 against the Athletics.^[1]

The second one was a small chunk of text among a list of what appears to be every player they had during the time period:
Washington Ritter "Rit" Harrison- Harrison was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, and was most likely playing with the Bridgeport TBs when called to serve as a replacement player for New Haven on May 20, 1875. He managed two hits, including a double, in four trips to the plate. Harrison died in Bridgeport on November 7, 1888.^[2]

Feel free to make of this what you will. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you made the effort to find that! It's admittedly too short to add much to the case for notability. Still, my opinion is that there's just enough information between the three books cited to justify a standalone page for this ballplayer. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: He's got a paragraph here [11] and [12], but nothing in SABR [13]. That's more biographical info than a lot of the ones I've seen here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am satisfied that the sourcing that is readily available is adequate for someone who died more than a century before the internet. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate a bit on what you meant by readily available? Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 17:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the phrase "readily available" do you not understand? Rlendog (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of readily available, for instance? Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 11:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (Arcidiacono 2009, p. 125)
^ (Arcidiacono 2009, p. 211)

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 Gloriavale Christian Community. Star Mississippi 02:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air West Coast

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

Cannot find a single ref that goes towards notability. I originally BLAR'd it to the article of the group that ran it, as it is mentioned there with a brief description. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This airline was unique it was the first airline to operate the Dornier 228 in NZ. Plus they were the first airline to offer a scheduled service from Greymouth to Wellington. The history of would be lost if deleted as it's useful resource for research on former airlines of New Zealand. There is a long list of defunct airlines on the Template which will get destroyed if they are to be deleted one by one. A lot of work has been put in to create all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Airlines_of_New_Zealand

That is why these should be retrained on Wikipedia. CHCBOY (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history will not be lost if it is restored to a redirect, which I have no opposition to. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the redirect before and that's what it was only the article was gone completely. CHCBOY (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @CHCBOY, the mere fact that an airline was the first operator of <insert type of aircraft> or the first to serve <name of destination> is not adequate to establish notability if quality WP:SECONDARY sources do not exist. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the old references used in the article have gone to the archives.Also the 3rd Level NZ review of them does use a reference from the Greymouth Star but there is no link available that I can find. CHCBOY (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found two more Newspaper reference one from The Westport News and one from the Greymouth Evening Star with actual dates but do not have urls for them as it goes back to 2008. Probably too early for newspapers to do an online version. CHCBOY (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this airline seems like it should have some notability, but as it stands, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related databases and travel websites. Perhaps some better sources will emerge and I will change my mind. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to find sources verifying it exists, but nothing to establish notability. The most in-depth piece I see is one from a blog which wouldn't met WP:ORGCRIT. I have no opinion on merge or redirect but always happy with an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find enough to establish notability online. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gloriavale Christian Community: where it is already mentioned, as a natural ATD. This will also address CHCBOY's concern about losing the page history. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxon Brown

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

No WP:SIGCOV for this British athlete and thus no pass on WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. The closest we get is this, but it's still WP:ROUTINE promotion news. Everything else is match and transfer coverage and stats pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, no objection to draftify for an early career athlete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18

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

Unaccepted draft exists at Draft:Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 with several rejections, edits from multiple contributors and a longer history. 2000editor has ignored this and pushed something with less information at this point that is questionable if the pre-release publicity articles show enough to meet notability. The ideal solution would be to continue to work on the draft and get that accepted, but given this has been recreated by 2000editor several times, AFD is probably the best option to resolve this via consensus rather than one editor ignoring what others are respectfully working on. Ravensfire (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Ravensfire (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An option could be to merge the contents of the draft and hist-merge the draft and consider it accepted. Not ideal, but by the time this gets close to closing the show will be close to broadcast and there should be plenty of material to show notability. I cannot accept anything where the work on the draft is not respected and included - that would be extremely disrepectful to those that have done things the correct way. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If you check the edit history of the draft, you'll see that the creator of this latest version has been removing other editors' useful contributions, in borderline vandalism. From that, and from this thread at their user talk, they seem to want full credit for the article, or something. In any case, the draft is nearly ready for publication. Wikishovel (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, they created the original draft on 9/17. Even with a histmerge, they would get credit for creating. Impatientence, some communication issues and here we are. Ravensfire (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer The ANI post with my suggestion below was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Creation_of_Bigg_Boss_18_article closed without any admin comment or action. The show will be broadcast in a few days, making a lot of this mess fairly moot. At this point, I think the easiest way out is to merge relevent sourced content from the draft into the main article, hist-merge the two and change the draft to a redirect, basically accepting the draft. This close to the show starting, if this article is deleted it will be created (repeatedly if needed), ignoring the draft. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and fully protect Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 and Bigg Boss (Hindi season 18) and the draft should be moved to mainspace when it meets general notability. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reiterating all the points listed above. The conduct is very concerning but better for ANI at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about an ANI post but for an IAR solution to this - merge the contents of this into the draft, histmerge with the draft, then accept the draft, and mark this AFD as moot with the draft accepted. Meets the goals of improving the encyclopedia, with the contents merged it's close to meeting GNG if not there and the disruption is stopped. With the histmerge, all of the contributions from before are noted and recognized. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2000editor started an ANI post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Creation_of_Bigg_Boss_18_article, I left this proposal there. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment there. Seems to be an WP:IDHT or WP:CIR issue. Either way, it is becoming disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can this AFD be closed early per WP:EARLY since this show is starting today? Pinging admins who frequently close AFDs: @Liz, @OwenX, @Doczilla. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 10:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the urgency. This AfD is scheduled to close tomorrow. Is there a copyright violation or other content that demands immediate handling? If not, let the process run its course. WP:SNOW makes sense on the first couple of days, not when the normal closing time is a day away, with five participants taking part in the discussion. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the perceived stigma of a show that's being broadcast having an AFD notice. This has been a mess that still needs some cleanup and at a minimum a histmerge with the draft. Ravensfire (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator and all other voters. Constructing a page while a draft exists for the subject is unethical and disregarding. Merging the contents of the draft and performing a history merge seems like a good approach, especially now that the show is airing and potentially generating additional material. ManaliJain (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to India's Ultimate Warrior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Shetty

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

Redirect to India's Ultimate Warrior. The coverage seems to be WP:BLP1E as it is all from March 2022, when he won the competition. JTtheOG (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Television, and India. JTtheOG (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to India's Ultimate Warrior. Page is about contestant winning a show that aired in 2022 WP:BLP1E. No other significant and substantial achievement noteworthy about the contestant. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to India's Ultimate Warrior.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Maxwell (businessman)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are not great in terms of coverage. A cursory search does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Almost all of the sources are about either interviews of him, or passing mentions of him about policy. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Wise (businessman)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are not great in terms of coverage. The wedding coverage fails WP:SIGCOV. Every other source (like this, this, or this) from the article critically fails WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The coverage is too slight to establish notability. JSFarman (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete for lack of significant coverage, but also for WP:TNT, with meaningless phrases like “associated with.” Bearian (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Margaret Pargeter

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

Completely unreferenced article about the pseudonym of a writer of romance novels. As always, writers are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- biographical information, reviews of their books by professional literary critics, evidence of noteworthy literary awards, etc. -- but this cites no GNG-worthy sourcing at all, and in fact the closest thing to a "reference" in it (until I stripped it just now) was the self-published directory profile of a non-pseudonymous writer who wasn't claiming herself to be the author of any of these books, and thus appears to have been a "publicize her by piggybacking onto an unrelated article" stunt (or possibly, but not verifiably, insider info) rather than evidence of the notability of "Margaret Pargeter".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without proper GNG-compliant sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : surprise, surprise, there is no coverage for this unknown person. Not sure what we're supposed to do with this, unref. stub about a fake person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any coverage, or even any reviews of any of the books. The only reason we know that Pargeter *is* a psuedonym is the unreferenced claim in the Wikipedia article itself. Shame really - I rather think this would make a fascinating journalistic investigation - but without such we can do naught but delete. ResonantDis_tortion 19:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Strike pending review of article improvements. ResonantDis_tortion 08:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was able to find listings for some books through Newspaper Archive (At First Glance, Hold Me Captive), but they're not reviews and thus, do not establish notability for either the book or author. Ping me if anything is uncovered. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I am adding sources to the article now. Carefully. Stay tuned. (Seems ironic we are giving so much weight to an unsourced, unverified claim that there is no information available about this author.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:HEY. There is also a clear notability argument now as Margaret Pargeter was one of the most widely read authors in Britain as reported by the New York Times Book Review in 1986. The best source, now added to the article, is the analysis of her works by Arlene Moore which has been reprinted in many volumes, including Twentieth Century Romance and Goth Writers (Gale Research, 1982) and Twentieth Century Romance and Historical Writers (St. James Press) in 1990 and again in 1994. Her works as a major author of Harlequin romances has also been the subject of close analysis by feminist scholars such as Tania Modleski in her chapter "The Disappearing Act: Harlequin Romances" in Gender, Language, and Myth, which analyzes and interweaves many excerpts from Pargeter's Hold Me Captive (1976). Pargeter's The Jewelled Caftan (1978) is one of the novels analyzed in a widely cited article by Evelyn Bach, "Sheik Fantasies: Orientalism and Feminine Desire in the Desert Romance". All of these sources have been added to the article, which has been expanded, also with confirmed details about the author's biography (even though they are scarce). In addition, a surprise discovery was an autobiographical essay by Margaret Pargeter published in 1979 by Harlequin Enterprises. I could find no sources claiming that "Margaret Pargeter" was a pen name...and while we can't add it to the article because there is no stated connection, there does happen to be someone with that name who otherwise fits the description exactly who died in 2023. Need to run now but will ping the author discussion participants later. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Significa liberdade, @ResonantDistortion, @Oaktree b, @Bearcat for reconsideration if you are interested, as article is quite different now. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the new sources identified, we have GNG. Good job in finding them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as some participants are reviewing their original arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has now been well established. Good work, Cielquiparle. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. Hats off to the work of Cielquiparle. ResonantDis_tortion 18:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Cielquiparle found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumi James

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

Non-binary black filmaker and dj. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Doing the before couldn't find anything on a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 16:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found an additional source here. That's still not enough with what's already on the article to pass WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VLAB

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

Notability concerns. Organization appears to be defunct; the references are either sponsored or trivial mentions. Google search returns dozens of other "virtual lab" or "venture lab" results, but nothing about this one other than its social media. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:NORG with insufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. This is a non-admin procedural close following G5 speedy deletion by Kuru, see log. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Shahriar Shahir Barzegar

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

Spammy WP:PROMO bio (created by a now-blocked sock) of a businessman. No WP:SIGCOV; the independent sources are all WP:INTERVIEWs, and the rest of the sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES or the subject's own website and self-published books. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Arab Emirates. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prejudice to the nominator, but I'd have gone speedy with this. Fails WP:GNG with considerable brio. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedprakash Dongaonkar

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

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:WRITER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PROF as in a non-notable position. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage sources were found, and WP:AUTHOR as the books are non-notable. In my view, it does not meet any notability criteria. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, as there isn't even a single reliable reference to support his significance. Dcotos (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. Subject has not made a significant achievement nationally or internationally worthy of notice to have a page warranted on. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant achievement, thus fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roche Caiman Power Station

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and notability Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the page creator, I made an effort to enhance it with local media references and government reports. Being the only major power plant on the island of Mahe in Seychelles, this facility holds significant importance in the country’s energy sector. However, if most of the votes on this Afd favor deletion, my only request is to merge it with Seychelles#Energy. Charlie (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion is not an option. Additionally, a lot of improvements have occurred since its nomination. Can the nominator review the article a week later?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the sourcing isn't as in-depth as we'd prefer, I think there is enough to keep this article. Moreover, given Wikipedia's well-known and self-acknowledged systematic bias against topics like this, it is preferable to keep and continue looking for better sourcing.--User:Namiba 15:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per Keep arguments. Clear consensus against deletion per NCORP and, thus, for keeping the page. The author may expand it though to reflect the impact on the industry. (non-admin closure) Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change (company)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP, mainly press releases as sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. – The Grid (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Estonian media coverage, particularly in highly reliable sources such as the national newspaper Äripäev, provides substantial and in-depth reporting that firmly establishes the company notability. The coverage is not superficial however sometimes paywalled. --حجر الكريستال (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: حجر الكريستال (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep per the reliable sources present in the page - they are in local language but their significant coverage pretty obviously satisfies NCORP. Prone to fails (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. The article basically doesn't talk about what makes the subject notable, just things that any run of the mill company does: having founders, moving headquarters, getting investments. Some WP:TNT might be needed here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it provides significant information about a notable company that has made a meaningful impact in its industry, supported by reliable Estonian sources --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned nothing about the impact of the platform in the article. I know it is a brokerage platform, that's it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes GNG with those sources and more sources exist. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and cover valuable information of financial technology companies. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted, please don't vote multiple times. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Harvey and the Wallbangers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Griffiths

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

Mathematician who self-publishes by the looks of it. Fails WP:SIGCOV. UPE. Fails WP:BIO. Its likely him. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, Mathematics, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, that's a lot of Lulu.com books. It's conceivable in principle that a self-published book could be article-worthy in its own right or contribute to the article-worthiness of the author if it were well-reviewed, but so far I haven't found any indications of that happening here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harvey and the Wallbangers, the band he belonged to, which might be notable. I can find no notability for his mathematics teaching or publications (such as reviews of his self-published books). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harvey and the Wallbangers, as suggested by David Eppstein. His books are all self-published (which can become notable but is rare). Bearian (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Adelaide–Wolseley railway line. as an ATD. If you would like to take it to WP:RFD, feel free. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabila railway station

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

"Very little is known of this station." - direct quote from the article. Looking for this online only gets me results for Rabale railway station in India. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear GNG fail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the line. The station verifiably existed which is enough to merit a redirect. "Very little" is not "nothing". Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a redirect. Procyon117 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of the station in that article - not even a table of all stations. Given that, I'm not sure if that's an appropriate redirect. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's one here [14]. It's given as 63 miles (101km) from Adelaide, which doesn't match the article, but it does match the source given in the article which says it was 5 miles from Murray Bridge. Note that it's given as existing in 1940 and 1958, but not in 1920 and not by 1977, which means it didn't last a huge amount of time in railway terms and is probably why there's very little info about it. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, you source does show it actually existed. Given that I don't object to a redirect. I do stand by that this never should have been made a full article, but that's already come and gone. I much prefer to bring articles like this to AfD rather than unilaterally redirect because it's possible someone has access to sources I couldn't find and something is notable, or there's a better redirect target than what I thought would be best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:GNG. Not sure this should be a redirect as it's not mentioned at the target and is an implausible search term as it has been closed for many decades and per the article "Very little is known of this station". AusLondonder (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as GNG failure. –BarntToust ^(Talk) 00:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It literally states "Very little is known of this station" proving it to have no notability. 79lives (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide–Wolseley railway line as WP:ATD. We have sourcing to show the station exists, so we can add it onto the route map and call it a day. Below is the list of sourcing I found (the second one is unreadable, if it was readable there is a slim possibility of GNG pass):

"RAILWAY PLATFORM AT RABILA". Mount Barker Courier and Onkaparinga and Gumeracha Advertiser. 1924-11-21. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
"A RABILA SIDING". Advertiser. 1923-08-30. Retrieved 2024-10-06.

Jumpytoo Talk 01:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adelaide–Wolseley railway line would indeed be the best choice, because, indeed, we could add the depot to the route map and call it even. TH1980 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one reference that exists is WP:PRIMARY and I couldn't find anything else during a search. This appears to fail WP:GNG. I don't believe a redirect is appropriate given it's a implausible search term and would stand a good chance of getting deleted at WP:RFD. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this is an implausible search term? If it's mentioned on the target article (and we have sufficient sourcing to verify that it should be) then it is most likely to be kept at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned at Adelaide–Wolseley railway line. TarnishedPath^talk 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have stated, this article clearly fails GNG, and would most likely be nominated for deletion at RfD. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. While the nomination had merit, there was no support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with the article besides the pure definition of gamesmanship (which, in itself, is partly WP:OR) being an example farm of different sports. Beyond that, it mostly cites the book written by the person who popularized (and possibly invented) the term, a primary source that doesn't contribute to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Psychology, and Sports. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Competition. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly in rough shape, but it already contains secondary sources establishing notability. For instance, The Timelessness of Steven Potter's "Gamesmanship" discusses the concept and its origins and impact ~~at length~~. That essay also contains pointers to additional potential sources such as this apparently-famous book which applies the concept to the behaviour of corporate executives. Similar sources appear to be plentiful on Google Books and Google Scholar. So this looks to me like WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it discusses the concept at length, but it appears to be about the book itself. Do you have access to the book to pinpoint where exactly it discusses the concept alone and then demonstrate that evidence? Right now we have no way to know whether you have read the book or if it is simply an assumption. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. My comment above was based on a skim of the essay, and looking back now I do think I overstated things. You're right that the essay is primarily a literary discussion of Potter's book. However in its discussion of the book's legacy and impact it does verify that the concept of gamesmanship has had an enduring life of its own. So in combination with the other sources, I'm still satisfied that this counts as WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Botterweg14. This is a reasonably well-sourced article on a notable concept that does not at all read like a dictionary definition. Frank Anchor 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well-known, often used term (though perhaps mostly in Britain) by people who have no idea of the etymology. Little grape (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stela Semanová

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

I cannot find enough significant coverage for this Slovak women's footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest one was SME but it's paywalled. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Lorn

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

Lack of notability. Only stuff I could find was either self-published or inadequate for the purpose of establishing notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Luxembourg. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any secondary sources. Luxembourg is small but Germany is close by. Geschichte (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. czar 13:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mong-Lan

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

This article looks like an autobiography, with all references from her website. Not sure if this person meets WP:GNG. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Poetry, and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, Dance, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has received more than three independent book reviews of more than one book, so I would argue she meets NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, met GNG before the nomination and with the added sources and work on the page since the nomination, good to go (stay). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Thank User:Significa liberdade for cleaning up and adding sources for this article. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR as per the multiple reliable sources reviews added to the article references since nomination, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinhook, Decatur County, Indiana

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

A "nothing there" spot about which I can only find the barest passing reference in one of those old county histories. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, has no reliable sources. Has no notable features that would make it comply with WP:NGEO. Pygos (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero information found, name just miraculously appears on USGS topo maps in 1958: [15] without any apparent infrastructure. Nothing but a couple rural homes today. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't believe I have to ask this, but, as this place seems to be existent, just very obscure, should this article be kept just for the sake of completeness of Decatur County, Indiana? It's obviously not up to WP:NGEO, but so are many of the other articles in Decatur County, Indiana, like Knarr Corner, Indiana and New Pennington, Indiana. Deleting this would mean that many other articles of similar quality should be deleted. I recognize this situation similar to that discussed in Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Notability and British Rail stations. Is this place notable just for existing? What do you think? Pygos (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pygos: Please see WP:EXIST. As for other articles of similar quality being deleted, by all means, let's delete them. Have a look at my edit history and you'll see that clearing Wikipedia of stubs like this is a recent crusade of mine. If a place has no documentation then an article on it does nothing but clutter the internet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a named place, at least according to some topo maps. That's all we know. We don't have reliable evidence for what this particular name-on-a-map represents, yet we're still calling it an "unincorporated community" in wikivoice and linking to the census despite it having no mention there. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bier

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are profile, passing mentions, 404's and single NY article on buying an old town. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source to establish the minimum guideline or WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note - The article was tagged for G7 by the original author. I've declined the speedy deletion as there are significant edits from other editors including this WP:BLAR. The closer may wish to consider taking into account the G7 request when weighing consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pet WP:BLP1E. He received some publicity for buying a ghost town - I remember reading the article at the time - but everything else about him on the page is random and ordinary. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torontow

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played the title character in Sweeney Todd, among other major characters and has been nominated for Dora Awards both as a leading actor and a director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable enough to me, given his stage career and existing sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think he is 46, so he is well advanced in his career. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit on a crucial point there. I need to remember that for the future. Almost middle-aged and no reviews. Good point. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @Ssilvers. Subject appeared in various plays have sources which support them. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep !votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than the CBC article about the one-man show, rest are simply confirmation of various performances... I don't consider the award terribly notable. Perhaps the Dora, rest are rather small/non-notable. I don't find additional coverage of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above, has zero WP:SIGCOV on him in any quality British RS (and nothing internationally). Is 46, so is well advanced in their career with no sign of their notability improving. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the comments above, his own website says he "is arguably most “famous” for helping remind you to switch modes on your phone in the Air Canada in-flight safety video." This is not a notable person. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable existing sources. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:SPA editor has made few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the CBC story, this article lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable national sources. The subject fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick BEFORE finds an in-depth significant media coverage - Ottawa Citizen 2004 (ProQuest 240730536; GNG met with other articles already mentioned. . A lot of other material (224 hits in Proquest!). Nfitz (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a bit of international coverage on the actor, some reviews, even country wide would be ideal. Torontow is an Ottawa born guy and local papers always report on their local folk. It their duty of care, if you like and a well known phenomena. It likely fails WP:AUD. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD is reserved for companies and organisations, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the only piece on him and it is from a minor Canadian newspaper from Ottawa, and the subject is from Ottawa. There is no SIGCOV that I can find on him as a notable person in any national RS in any country (even Canadian). Given his job is promotion, Scope Creep's reference to WP:AUD in not unreasonable. At 46, if this is all he has, he is unlikely to be a notable person in his profession of performing? His Wikipedia article would be the biggest 'plank' in his notability. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominance Fighting Championship

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

Article based on primary sources. A search of Google news just yields primary sources too. The first event hosted by this company had now occurred with no coverage. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Martial arts, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New MMA organization with essentially some press releases. I see nothing that shows this organization is WP notable at this time. Perhaps a redirect to Mark Madsen (fighter) who founded the organization (and where the org is already mentioned)? Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New martial arts organization, with one event. Doesn't meet notability guidelines at all. Lekkha Moun (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete limited coverage by reliable, independent sources that provide significant attention to DFC. Most of the information available focuses on its founder, Mark O. Madsen, rather than the organization itself. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Openware

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

Does not fit the NCORP, and I cannot find reliable sources for this software company. 美しい歌 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original creation was almost certainly COI spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promo spam for non-notable organization. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Google Books search brought up unrealted company. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Giansiracusa

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and references could not prove WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Just as Ldm1954 stated on the talk page, this is indeed WP:TOOSOON. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly unremarkable minor academic, fails NPROF and the GNG going away. Ravenswing 06:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record not strong enough to carry the article in the absence of anything else that contributes to notability. I didn't find any reviews of his one book, and even if I did one book isn't generally enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. His citation record is not as yet strong enough to qualify. He is doing some interesting things with opinion pieces etc, and these are beyond routine. However, I don't see enough as yet for notability. I think it is too soon, but he is on an interesting path and may well qualify in 2-3 years. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails all the parts of the PROF test, and writing opinion pieces is ordinary. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One highly cited publication does not make WP:NPROF C1. The efforts at being a public intellectual might eventually lead to a pass of WP:NPROF C7, but I am as yet unconvinced. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wooah. ✗plicit 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nana (entertainer, born 2001)

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

Article does not establish individual notability outside of her band activities per WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:ENTERTAINER RachelTensions (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. orangesclub 🍊 00:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wooah: as per WP:BANDMEMBER. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 12:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to New Afrikan Black Panther Party#Ideology. ✗plicit 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantherism

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

Not having references or not notable enough to have a separate article. Probable Redirect to New Afrikan Black Panther Party#Ideology - The9Man ^Talk 08:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Afrikan Black Panther Party#Ideology. Yue🌙 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. The ideology of a party is its reason for being. There are not enough sources for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Edelstein

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

I am unable to find any significant or independent coverage of this bridge player. The NYT source is a couple of sentences in a bridge tournament report. Note that there seems to be some unrelated people by the same name, for instance a reviewer for Variety [16]. Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Geschichte (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear GNG fail.

Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found for a bridge player, I can find plenty of people with the same name. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hyun-kwan

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

The claim to notability, playing 4 games in Finland, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that, and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a long term consensus that playing in the Veikkausliiga confers notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline states this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL has been abolished. Giant Snowman 19:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom and article is unsourced. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeneRally

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article doesn't cite anything that would establish notability. The article was previously deleted in 2008. toweli (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Finland. toweli (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got a review in CanardPC magazine, but I couldn't find anything else of significant note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not seeing anything.Timur9008 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AZA Finance

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

it lacks sufficient reliable secondary sources to establish the company's notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. Additionally, the article mostly relies on primary sources, making it difficult to verify its claims and meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear GNG fail, all coverage is routine and/or insignificant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dayfree Press

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

While (some of) the webcomics that were part of Dayfree Press are notable, DP itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. There's this article in the The Comics Grid journal, which brings it up on p. 4 and 9 (and which could be considered sigcov, I guess). And there's also a Wired.com blog that says ~80 words about Dayfree Press. But I wasn't able to find more. toweli (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Webcomics, Organizations, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi toweli there are also mentions alongside other webcomic collectives in A History of Webcomics (2006) and Webcomics 2.0 (2008) also has a section on webcomics collectives. So combined with the Comics Grid Journal article you found...and possibly others (that don't mention Dayfree Press), my proposed solution as a WP:ATD (if you are interested) would be to create a new "List of webcomic collectives" article (if one doesn't already exist) and redirect Dayfree Press to that one. Happy editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Assuming there are enough sources, that sounds like a good idea and would allow Wikipedia to cover webcomic collectives which have received some coverage, but not enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. An ATD was mentioned but no target article identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear GNG fail, listcruft of something that isn't even a real organisation, it's just a collection of people who stuck weblink advertising on their page. It's been 15 years with zero sourcing. Enough is enough. Time to go. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This book comes up, but I can't open it from my location [17]. I don't see sigcov for this web item. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideal thing is to create the list article proposed above. For now very short selective merge to Webcomic#Webcomics collectives seems best. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 and G11 by Deb. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pataki shruthi

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

Falls WP:GNG and unsourced. TyphoonAmpil ^{[citation needed]} 06:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged under multiple criteria: A7 and G11. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was N/C between Keep and Merge‎. Please continue that discussion on the Talk. A delete outcome will not emerge from this discussion, so there's no need for a further relist. Star Mississippi 03:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules lawyer

AfDs for this article:

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

Simple failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY as the article only consists of a definition. A potential WP:ATD is merge to Letter and spirit of the law, but that one is more in a legal context than a gaming one, and not exactly well-sourced or stable in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m satisfied what’s there shows it can. Tell me where you would merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing game terms seems like a better place to merge it than letter and spirit of the law given its predominant use in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that one paragraph into Role-playing game terms. The relevance of the "Related terms" seems very tenuous to me. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge, Related terms would appear to be NOTDICTIONARY. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article content into Role-playing game terms, alongside Rule as Intended and Rule as Written which discuss two sides of the same coin. A list is a better place for this, since a standalone article is borderline WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jtwhetten (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between editors advocating Keep and those pushing a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus and would rather not close this as No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous keep posts. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Role-playing game terms per ClaudineChionh and Jtwhetten. The WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument is valid here, and there's also no sense in creating a bunch of stubs for something that can be adequately covered in a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Ambani

AfDs for this article:

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

Keep Withdrawn, not sure how those articles slipped though thanks for being professional and sorry for taking up your time! Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Article failes WP:GNG, I did WP:BEFORE but couldn't find anything of note. This article was recreated a month or two after the last AfD. Recently it was made into a redirect and an IP editor reverted claiming that the last AfD was not a delete but a no consensus. This is not true, the last AfD was a delete, the current article does not meet pass notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the second AfD where it ended as a no consensus. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: Yes, the IP is correct. The second AfD resulted in ‘No consensus,’ and although it was sent to deletion review, the outcome was still ‘Endorsed.’ GrabUp - Talk 06:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG the subject has received coverage particularly after he became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India. It is the third largest mobile network operator in the world. Note the coverage listed below about the subject is due to the fact he is the Chairman of Reliance JIO not because of his being Mukesh Ambani's son and hence WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here.Further How one becomes Chairman or President or director is not a concern as far notability is concerned Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC) ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12][reply]

References

^ "Akash Ambani: Here's all you need to know about Reliance Jio's new chairman". The Economic Times. 30 June 2022. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
^ "Who is Akash Ambani? Know all about the new chairman of Reliance Jio and son of billionaire Mukesh Ambani". Free Press Journal. 28 July 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
^ "Who Is Akash Ambani? 5 Facts About Reliance Jio's New Chairman". NDTV. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
^ "Position of power: Akash Ambani moves from open office to Jio corner room". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Everything you want to know about Akash Ambani, the new chairman of Reliance Jio Infocomm". GQ. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Akash Ambani, chairman, Reliance Jio: Learning the ropes from the best teacher in town". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Reliance empire succession: what to know about Akash Ambani, from his support of Mumbai Indians, Ivy League education to love of luxury cars". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Inheritors of Reliance Empire:Know Everything about Akash and Isha Ambani". Outlook. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Akash Ambani: Meet the new Chairman of Reliance Jio". Hindu Businessline. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Akash Ambani Appointed as Reliance's Chairman, All you Need to Know About Him". India Today. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Isha, Akash Ambani, Ghazal Alagh in Hurun's under-35 list of entrepreneurs: Check list here". Hindustan Times. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 30 September 2024.
^ "Akash Ambani: A look at the new Reliance Jio chief's journey with RIL's telecom arm". Moneycontrol. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 30 September 2024.

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: The Economic Times article you cited in the first position is a paid/sponsored WP:NEWSORGINDIA article, as it is published by ‘ET Spotlight Special.’ It also has a disclaimer at the end stating: ‘This content is authored by an external agency. The views expressed here are those of the respective authors/entities and do not represent the views of The Economic Times (ET). ET does not guarantee, vouch for, or endorse any of its contents, nor is it responsible for them in any manner whatsoever.’ GrabUp - Talk 07:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the majority of the articles you cited are not authored by any named journalists, but rather by a generic ‘NewsDesk.’ Therefore, I believe these fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. GrabUp - Talk 07:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a useful exercise to dismiss that entire lot of a dozen sources wholesale. Five of the 12 show up in green on the source highlighter tool. From a random check, this source looks like secondary SIGCOV, has a named author, and the publisher's reliability is backed by community consensus at WP:SCMP. Left guide (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I did not dismiss all cited sources. I said the majority of sources are not from any named journalists, but from generic names, which makes me think these sources are likely WP:NEWSORGINDIA. South China Morning Post is not under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, in case you didn’t know. GrabUp - Talk 11:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; citation #6 in the above list (Financial Times) also appears to have the same set of aforementioned traits as the SCMP piece: secondary SIGCOV, named author, and deemed generally reliable by community consensus at WP:RSP. Left guide (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hong, Nigeria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildi

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

No sources on page, fails WP:GNG. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. GMaps thinks that Hildi is a small city at a different location; so does GNS. Come back and make an article with sources that we can verify; as it is, there's no reason to think this is even true. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hong, where it's mentioned. Apparently it is a district of the Hong Local Government Area ([18]). JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support your point. It should be Redirected. Gabriel (……?) 16:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 03:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Adams

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

Only one reference on the page and it's a dead link to a bio of her from the government organization she works for. A quick search shows a decent amount of articles about and by a South African woman named Rachel Adams regarding AI (here, here, and here) but this seems to be a completely different woman who just happens to share a name and nationality. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep She doesn't "work for a government organization", she's an elected member of the National Assembly of South Africa, the parliament of South Africa. Easily meets WP:NPOL. Quite easy to find the correct link. AusLondonder (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as parliamentarian, but the article really needs more info e.g. her terms. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of coverage for the AI person as mentioned, I don't see anything about a politician. Happy to revisit if we find new sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly exists, she has a profile on the parliamentary website, she's also in a list of candidates elected in 2019. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the person exists, we don't have any extensive sourcing about them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. She is a member of a national parliament which meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The article is poorly written, but WP:IMPROVE.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another variant of webpage regarding her parliamentary duties. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion - she's a parliamentarian. NHCLS (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NPOL. It would be nice to add some biographical details and a table of election results, but AfD is not for fixing short stubs into better articles. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets NPOL as a member of the SA National Assembly. I found a couple extra secondary sources that mention her in passing. I think the difficulty that the original editor ran into was there is an MP named Rachel Cecilia Adams (subject of the article) and then there is Dr. Rachel T. Adams (the AI expert), and there was confusion there. Bkissin (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. As others have noted, the subject clearly meets criterion#1 of WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It doesn't take a lot of effort to realise that the subject satisfies WP:NPOL. Think before pulling the trigger. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ramli Mall

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

Shopping mall in Bahrain fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was not able to find anything of note about this building. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Society

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:SUSTAINED WP:INDEPTH WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Polygnotus (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Prometheus Society has been active for over 40 years. It has had hundreds of members, and its journal, Gift of Fire, has had over 200 issues printed. Every article I know of that discusses high IQ societies more selective than Mensa mentions it. There's no other high IQ society more selective than Mensa which is better known, with the possible exception of Mega. Promking (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Prometheus Society holds a prominent place in the history of high IQ societies. It accepts people who have an IQ at the 4 sigma level, with a minimum IQ of 164. As stated, this is the best known IQ society above the Mensa level. I've been a member for many years. 2604:2D80:A682:5800:E0EE:FD15:96AA:925A (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been brought to AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: GNG fail. Coverage is routine and/or insignificant. Journals are not independent coverage. Being a group of alpha sigma level geniuses doesn't confer notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, the journal articles are primarily on topics related to social science, as opposed to the society itself (which seems not to be mentioned at all). Although there seems to be some secondary coverage, there is not the widespread secondary coverage required by GNG. GuardianH (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered in a substantial way as an organization. XOR'easter (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 03:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research Superfund Site

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

Fails to establish notability. None of the article's sources appear independent of the subject, and are thus not reliable enough to support a claim of notability. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources with significant coverage which would help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for AfC reviewer Garsh2. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles exist:[19] [20][21]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garsh2: One more ping since we're on the second relist now. Are you inclined to reconsider your !vote based on my source analysis? Are there any other sources that might support a notability claim? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I neglected to finish this discussion. I'm still inclined to disagree with you based on the sources provided, though I certainly see your perspective. You are correct about the California Aggie, didn't make that connection originally though it did seem like a weird source. I don't necessarily see a problem with the reliability of citation five, though I see why the government sources may not be secondary enough. It is important to point out, however, that there are sources from multiple government agencies (Department of health and human services, DOE, and EPA). It might be a stretch to say that all three of these agencies are directly involved in the site, unless you count the entire federal government as a single source (I usually don't). We might be approaching no consensus territory, unless someone else is inclined to chime in. Garsh (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The main thing this article needed was reliable secondary sources; it also needed a bit more explanation and context in the lead paragraph. Have added the 2011 front page article in the Sacramento Bee, "UCD faces Superfund cleanup", which is continued on page A12; the 1994 article in the Los Angeles Times; and the 2018 article in the Sacramento Bee. Have gone back and fort on whether the "Superfund" actually belongs in the title – Hanford Site omits it, for example – plus if you add "Superfund" to the title, it seems like the "S" in "Site" should be lowercase, since this mouthful of an article title is not its official name (?). But that discussion can continue on the Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indianola Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP, which is the applicable SNG rather than WP:MUSIC, because it's a company. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear GNG fail, no sources. As an aside, Across Five Aprils (band), Casey Jones (band), Evergreen Terrace, Forgiven Rival, Gunmetal Grey, Life in Your Way, Odd Project and Sleeping by the Riverside should all be deleted for their own lack of notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Izmir. Star Mississippi 03:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatay, Konak

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

Tagged unsourced in 2009 and does not seem to be notable. Konak article exists so maybe this one not needed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: See [22], [23] for instance, but even without these, it should be speedily kept based on WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is ‘’semt’’ still a legally recognized subdivision of “ilçe”?Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a "semt" can be informal, but Hatay in İzmir as a city center is well-recognized even if it does not have official boundaries. The Konak municipality has a center there, public transit stations, events, etc... Within the "semt", there are lots of officially recognized "mahalle"s, each of which can have their own articles, according to WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I can create an article about any “mahalle” I like without any sources at all? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - Only two sources have been found so far, and as these are both the same publication, they count as one. A moot point as the second source is a passing mention. The first is a little better, suggesting the subject is a large district, but the discussion above suggests that the description is an informal one. Yet if we had multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the locality, the legal status would be irrelevant. I would move to keep if more and better sourcing could be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Izmir per Aintabli below. Suitable redirect. Updating my !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some coverage from a local newspaper columnist: [24]. I am still convinced the article should be kept per WP:PRESERVE, and many more sources can be found (books, travel guides, print archives, etc...) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to İzmir: The issue of coverage should be approached with care as most combinations with Hatay will likely return the overwhelmingly more well-known province. There's some coverage of the neighborhood [25][26]. Likely to find more with different keywords. Although an AfD's purpose is not sourcing, the unsourced state of the article automatically merits a cleanup. Unless someone adds a source, the neighborhood would best redirect to the city. Aintabli (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of fictional towns in literature#Gao Village. @Cunard: feel free to add the anchor as desired Star Mississippi 03:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Village

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

WP:BEFORE shows that this is barely mentioned in reliable sources which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There may be other elements of the novel that could be notable but this is a very minor element. Jontesta (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gao Village Arc was recently closed as "delete". I have not done a search for sources for this topic. Gao Village is mentioned at List of fictional towns in literature. If consensus is that this topic is not notable, I recommend adding an anchor to Gao Village's row in that list and redirecting this article to List of fictional towns in literature#Gao Village. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mysticons#Cast and characters. Star Mississippi 03:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mysticons characters

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

Non-notable list without WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are database style notes about the cast. WP:ATD would be to redirect this to a section in Mysticons. Jontesta (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. The page, should, instead, be redirected to Mysticons#Cast and characters. I think that would be the best approach. Historyday01 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Historyday01 and WP:ATD. Not enough sources, and Mysticons#Cast and characters covers this. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nova Corps. The history is retained should folks desire to merge some Star Mississippi 02:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar

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

Non-notable concept that does not have WP:SIGCOV based on a WP:BEFORE search where this is barely mentioned. Jontesta (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Corps - Its only notability is being the home world of the Nova Corp, and all of the essential information on the planet is already covered at that article. Per WP:NOPAGE the two topics should very obviously be covered under the same topic rather than being split out into two redundant articles. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the planets section of Features of the Marvel Universe. It would be better off being redirected there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RtKat3. I agree that is the best redirect option as the article does not seem to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the sourcing improvements made today, as I believe this topic now meets the GNG. BOZ (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The vast majority of the added sources are extremely trivial (lots of sources that consist of a couple of sentences, and even some one word mentions), are largely from content farms, and many are simply plot recaps of the movies/TV series it appeared in. The most extensive sources added are on the Disney World attraction and the merch you can buy there, not the actual fictional location in the comics. So, I am not convinced at all that any of the multitude of added sources come close to actually consisting of enough significant coverage in reliable sources that would pass the WP:GNG. And it still would not address the WP:NOPAGE concern I brought up above, that the planet has no reason to be covered separately from the actual Nova Corp - even the added sources, poor as they are, are talking about the Nova Corp as essentially the same topic. Rorshacma (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per all. The sources are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and don't meet the GNG. If need be, editors can perform a very selective merge at Nova Corps. (Features of the Marvel Universe is fine too. Or even both.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge as suggested. The sources are in passing, original research, or not reliable. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Green Lantern Corps. which has the consensus, but alternate targets can be discussed editorially as needed Star Mississippi 02:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oa (comics)

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

Non-notable concept that's improperly sourced, without meeting definition of WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N & WP:PLOT. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Lantern Corps, which it is most often associated with (or List of DC Universe locations# Planetary systems) in the spirit of WP:AtD. Oa does appear in a number of secondary sources, like Green Lantern and Philosophy, so it deserves some place on Wikipedia, even if it is not discussed extensively enough for a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Lantern Corps as there is currently no sourced content to merge, but it is a valid search term and should be redirected somewhere. Rhino131 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Green Lantern Corps - Agreed with the above that a separate article would not be appropriate here - the fictional planet's notability is tied entirely to its relation to the Green Lantern Corps, and should be covered as part of the same article. While there is an over abundance of overly detailed plot information here that does not need to be merged over, the main GLC article could use a bit more information/context explaining their HQ, so a selective merge of some information would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the planetary systems section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Zone

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

Non-notable concept largely unsourced, or sourced to unreliable / non-independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The academic publication Der Gefangene als Phantom has a multi-page chapter with analysis on the historical development, background and symbolism of the phantom zone. So if anyone can find at least one other relevant source, the requirements of WP:N would be fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And here it is: Case Study #2: The Phantom Zone is a journal article analyzing the Phantom Zone on multiple levels. Those two secondary sources easily provide enough material to write a full article, i.e. fullfilling WP:WHYN. There are also many more mentions in other secondary sources, though I have not looked into detail how much more material they contain. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I believe the two sources above are enough to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's barely enough shown here, alongside scatterings of secondary coverage from a BEFORE, to justify the split. Even so, if kept, the article should be cleaned up. For example, the large lists of inmates are likely not necessary, and notable inmates that are plot relevant can be kept to the plot section. The similar dimensions section also appears to be OR at a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While not all the inmates of the Phantom Zone have pages on this website, would you prefer that they each be transferred to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages regardless of this discussion's outcome? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that would flood these lists with a volley of non-notable characters. I can't speak as to who's important or not since I only have surface-level knowledge of DC lore, but I'd oppose the merging of the whole list of inmates, and I'd only merge over ones with an article (If not already listed) or ones who have a large amount of appearances outside of the context of the Phantom Zone. Those with heavy association with the Phantom Zone and are discussed in the article body beyond the list can probably continue to redirect there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Livingston

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

An unsourced article that appears to have been created and largely edited by a WP:SPA. It seems to be simultaneously trying to cover the fictional character, the series of books they appear in, and the author, and all three of those things appear to fail the WP:GNG. Searches for the character and the books turned up no coverage or reviews that I could find in reliable sources, and searches for the author only turned up a few brief mentions as an "acknowledgement" in a couple other books. Rorshacma (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Rorshacma (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find the author's About page on Amazon. dunno if this counts as a reliable source though. [27]https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B002BLWHAM/about Bluepotato81 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fancruft.-KH-1 (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have the time to find the reviews right now but this series's books are listed as having reviews in two book review indexes on archive.org. Non-0 chance the series is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does have two reviews, but it's from the same publication (kind of) so not very helpful. Also they might be short reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about a major arterial road in western Adelaide. It is also part of a set of Adelaide roads. The article has existed for over six years with no concern. Scott Davis ^Talk

"The article has existed for over six years with no concern" is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 sources were added since nomination, however I don't see evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as per norm Tesleemah (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources exist to meet GEOROAD. ([28][29][30]) GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume 1 and 3 are indepth as they are behind a paywall. Source 2 above is a 1 line mention of Grange Road. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI — the articles are accessible via an Apple News subscription. 1 mentions Grange Rd quite a bit throughout the article and is even in the headline. There a four mentions of Grange Rd in 3. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything which could be described as significant coverage on the page and I'm not finding much else which could be considered. JMWt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ ....and this particular reference holds multiple overlays containing relevant information to verify this road's location and councils responsible for it, amongst many other features: these sources are both reliable and from the state's own government department. Certainly there is more room for improvement and for a better variety of sources, but I don't believe it's a reason for deletion. Enough attention might encourage more contributions to invoke WP:HEY if it's not already there Lordstorm (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a clear consensus here to Keep but I'm unsure if the existing sources can justify this closure. Can editors who want this article Kept do a little digging for some reliable secondary sources? If this road is that important, they should be out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources at the article such as street directories and Google maps establish notability. The sources presented here amount to routine, local coverage of news such as apartments being built along the road or pedestrian crossing improvements in Adelaide which lists this road amongst many roads to be upgraded. Local roads like this must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Keep rationales with comments such as "The article has existed for over six years with no concern" or "Keep article as per norm" should be disregarded by closing admin as completely at odds with good-faith discussion of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Map overlays do absolutely nothing for notability as they are not secondary sources, and maps from the owner of the road itself are additionally not independent. Passing mentions in local news are also nowhere near sufficient for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of political movements named after dates

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, does not meet WP:SALAT as it is too trivial Bluepotato81 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SALAT. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "政府太干预或国人须忍耐经济专家政治人物经改不同调". 南洋商报 [Nanyang Siang Pau] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-03-17. Retrieved 2024-09-27.

[2] "《五月雪》送审四次张吉安曝电检通过关键". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-07-18. Retrieved 2024-09-27.

[3] (Arcidiacono 2009, p. 125)

[4] (Arcidiacono 2009, p. 211)

[5] "Akash Ambani: Here's all you need to know about Reliance Jio's new chairman". The Economic Times. 30 June 2022. Retrieved 3 July 2022.

[6] "Who is Akash Ambani? Know all about the new chairman of Reliance Jio and son of billionaire Mukesh Ambani". Free Press Journal. 28 July 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.

[7] "Who Is Akash Ambani? 5 Facts About Reliance Jio's New Chairman". NDTV. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

[8] "Position of power: Akash Ambani moves from open office to Jio corner room". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[9] "Everything you want to know about Akash Ambani, the new chairman of Reliance Jio Infocomm". GQ. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[10] "Akash Ambani, chairman, Reliance Jio: Learning the ropes from the best teacher in town". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[11] "Reliance empire succession: what to know about Akash Ambani, from his support of Mumbai Indians, Ivy League education to love of luxury cars". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[12] "Inheritors of Reliance Empire:Know Everything about Akash and Isha Ambani". Outlook. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[13] "Akash Ambani: Meet the new Chairman of Reliance Jio". Hindu Businessline. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[14] "Akash Ambani Appointed as Reliance's Chairman, All you Need to Know About Him". India Today. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[c937-15] "Isha, Akash Ambani, Ghazal Alagh in Hurun's under-35 list of entrepreneurs: Check list here". Hindustan Times. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 30 September 2024.

[w609-16] "Akash Ambani: A look at the new Reliance Jio chief's journey with RIL's telecom arm". Moneycontrol. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 30 September 2024.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]