Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 17	September 19 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Suriname relations

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

This article is mainly based on primary sources. The countries' interaction appears very minor and limited to diplomatic recognition. No embassies, state visits, agreements, significant migration or trade which typically add to notable relations. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and South America. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I browsed around for some Dutch sources, but niks, nada. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt is not remarkable. Embassies are not notable by nature and this one is nothing remarkable. The article on Spain–Suriname relations relations should mention the embassy, but a single sentence would suffice. 181.197.42.150 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an embassy article, it appears you have misread this AfD. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any additional sources, those in the article are insufficient, and the low level of relations does not convince me that more sources can be found. Toadspike [Talk] 22:07, 25 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!} 23:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Murray

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

Nonnotable pastor. Lacking significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a primary source [1] and that's about it. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also was unable to find more references. As always, happy to change my view if an expert can fix this article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Presidents of notable colleges and universities are usually kept under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6. Would Shelton College be considered such under the criterion? If so, there's a rationale for keeping. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline says major academic institution, not just "notable". Judging by our article on Shelton College, it's probably not "major". Toadspike [Talk] 22:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't pass GNG, only seems to have an article for simply being a pastor, which is not notable in and of itself DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not simply a pastor: "Murray served as a pastor until 1955, when he became president of Shelton College. He led the establishment of the Harvey Cedars Bible Conference in 1941, with the purchase of the historic Harvey Cedars Hotel. In 1960, he left Shelton to start a radio evangelism ministry, Bible Evangelism Inc.[1] Murray co-founded Clearwater Christian College during the early 1960s. In 1971, along with Allan MacRae, Murray founded Biblical Theological Seminary." as the article states, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 25 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. I don't see a consensus here. Some participants think the additional sources and resources brought to this discussion provide SIGCOV, others, especially those that participated in the first week, do not believe this is true. I don't think this is a situation that would be resolved by further relistings so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Editors are encouraged to bring some or all of these references to the article if this has not already been done and also start a talk page discussion if you believe the article should be renamed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Edwards (scientist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable academic whose credentials do not verify, and for whom most of the claims in the text are uncited. Even if there were sources he would not pass notability. Somehow the original nomination has got mangled so I am doing a second nomination. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely shocking that some ignorant (and perhaps ill intentioned) person is trying to delete the article about Canada's foremost expert on nuclear energy issues - who has worked for over 50 years to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear energy and nuclear waste. He is the most recognized activist on these issues in Canada and is in demand around the world as a speaker by groups fighting nuclear pollution. I'd be happy to provide many sources, but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing and would prefer to provide sources/background to an administrator. When the commenter above says "most of the claims in the text are uncited," he seems to be holding this article to a higher standard that hundreds of articles I've encountered (as a Wikipedia reader). When he says, "Even if there were sources he would not pass notability," he is revealing his profound ignorance about Dr. Edwards, his world-wide reputation and his life's work. What concerns me even more, though, is that there could be malicious intent here, trying to suppress the profile of a noted activist on a controversial topic. PLEASE - administrators, immediately look into what is going on here and put a stop to it if it is indeed malicious. Hundreds of Canadian activists are watching this closely and frankly, Wikipedia's credibility is on the line. PaceVerde (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic should definitely not be deleted. Dr. Edwards is an expert in nuclear energy issues and has a worldwide reputation. He is an excellent speaker, is extremely knowledgeable and is in demand around the world for his expertise. He is a prominent Canadian who should be represented in Wikipedia. I agree with the previous post, that Wikipedia should be sure that there isn't a nefarious person trying to shut down the discussion about nuclear energy. 45.78.126.149 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)— 45.78.126.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Content copied over from earlier nomination: 'Hello, I am concerned about the designation of Gordon Edwards' article as an article for "deletion". I viewed of list of multiple recent edits to his article, which appear to be done by a possible 'bot'. Would an administrator please check whether this is the case or not? Many thanks, Nancy Covington MD' 08:09, September 2, 2024‎— Preceding unsigned comment added by Covingni (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 September 2024‎ (UTC) — Covingni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (this remark was copied here by User:Ldm1954, not Covingni. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Content copied from talk page of earlier nomination: "I have followed Dr. Edwards for years and find his information on nuclear to be very helpful. The article on Dr. Edwards is factual. This article should remain on Wikipedia. It is concerning that someone, who appears to be pro-nuclear, has asked for the article on Dr. Edwards to be deleted, as it is perhaps bothersome to them in all its accuracy? Wanda Laurin (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)" — Wanda Laurin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Science. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the closer: This "2nd nomination" was created because User:@Daffydavid: tagged the article for deletion, but (presumably) mistakenly started the discussion at the article's talk page. User:@Covingni:'s keep !vote (which was copied here already by Ldm1954) was the first edit to the "1st nomination" page. which is why there is a "2nd nomination." Daffydavid's rationale for placing the deletion tag was as follows: The only reference attached that appears to be valid indicates the person to be unqualified. Daffydavid (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC) and I would interpret this as a delete !vote for the purposes of this "2nd" nomination. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found reliable sources about Edwards pretty quickly. I've added two to the article. I think this is more an issue of poor article quality and poor sourcing. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but there are still serious issues which it appears led to the original AfD by @Daffydavid. For instance, source [1] is used to verify that he is both President & co-founder of CCNR, but in fact it only states that he is President. While your sourcing is better, there are still too many unsourced claims and it remains very weak on SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you perform WP:BEFORE as requested in the AfD documentation? I did this myself and quickly found a number of reliable sources, though I haven't added all of them. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange response to having your sources be challenged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very strange response to my asking someone who nommed an article for deletion if they followed the steps required in the process. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me it does not matter if someone is pro- or anti- nuclear, QANON or a judge. The bar is the same and is in WP:N. That several WP:Single-purpose accounts make rude comments about Daffydavid or me is not going to change anything. As always, this is a discussion and proof of notability by reputable secondary sources is unconditionally required. This is of course at a higher level for living people. Just having a few mentions is not now and never has been enough. Maybe you can find enough, to date this page fails WP:PROVEIT by a long, long way.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that matters to me either. But you didn't respond to my question above RE: WP:BEFORE. Did you perform it as per the steps in the AfD documentation? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask that of @Daffydavid since he made the nomination, albeit with a technical glitch as @GhostOfDanGurney indicates above (a best guess) -- but I do support the nomination. @Daffydavid clearly tried to improve it then gave up, I see no indication of ill-will on his part. I of course did the routine Google check, not finding enough for Wikipedia:Notability of a BLP. You can find the SIGCOV to prove me wrong, I never claim to be infallible. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strange...in Wikipedia:Notability I find a whole subsection entitled: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." It points out that: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." For this subject, there are ample sources that come up on a simple Google search including articles, quotes in mainstream media, guest appearances on major Canadian television and radio networks, etc. I am working on identifying the best ones to add and will do so as soon as possible. Please note Dr. Edwards is not a university professor and doesn't claim to be. He is an independent expert. PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Biographical articles about living or recently deceased people have a higher standard for meeting Notability and verification policies. Simple attestations of sources existing is not enough. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PaceVerde - what you posted is accurate, but a few of us have already searched for Reliable Sources and come up a bit short. You're welcome to perform your own search and add sources to the article or to this discussion, but without satisfying minimal requirements the article will likely be deleted. You're invited to collaborate and improve the article to establish his notability according to our WP:BIO guidelines.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of these sources you found, I don't see any and talking on a TV show isn't notable... Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming you performed WP:BEFORE. That was all I wanted to know. I admit to never having heard of Edwards until I saw this AfD, so my own searches are limited in scope. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources.~~ I made a SA table for the sources presently in the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/12/06/lake-huron-canada-radioactive-nuclear-waste/2622110001/			Uses quotes from the subject, but the story is not at all about the subject, but rather the Canadian government potentially choosing a site on Lake Huron to store nuclear waste	✘ No
https://www.chroniclejournal.com/life/nuclear-waste-questions-continue-to-multiple/article_eb4d17e6-dd38-11ed-9cee-3f55993ebfab.html	Guest column written by a fellow anti-nuclear activist	The Chronicle-Journal is owned by Continental Newspapers	Has secondary context in amongst the story of the subject going on a speaking tour regarding the Canadian government's nuclear waste site decision	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110706201716/http://sun4.vaniercollege.qc.ca/math/2faculty.htm	A faculty listing by an employer	self-posted by the employer	Simply lists the subject's name as a faculty member.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As this shows, the subject does not come close to meeting GNG. Using google, I found a couple of directories of articles he has written for The Hill Times and National Observer, as well as more articles similar to the one by Detroit Free Press in which he is quoted in his role as a scientist who advocates against nuclear power, but like Detroit Free Press, is not about the subject. ~~― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)~~ - !vote struck ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. I found a fair number of opinion pieces by him, but instead we need independent works about him, and I didn't find those. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~self-struck. See new !vote below - as a mathematician, does not meet WP:PROF. As an anti-nuclear campaigner, I thought he might meet WP:GNG, but like David Eppstein, I am coming up short of any independent coverage that covers him. Not sure if there is off wiki canvassing here for keep voters, but ultimately it is the sources that matter, and we don't have anything that meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 7:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - You are perhaps not very familiar with the Canadian media? Dr. Edwards is a Canadian and is known across the country as an independent expert on the nuclear industry. That is why his opinion pieces are published in prominent national publications like The Hill Times and the National Observer. That is why he was featured as one of the main guests/experts on not one, but two episodes of the national award-winning TV program The Nature of Things, hosted on our national Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) network by Dr. David Suzuki (perhaps you've heard of him?). One is The Friendly Atom, 1998 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVgYrfSIAM, the other My Nuclear Neighbour, 2010 (looking for online link). On APTN News (Aboriginal Peoples television network) in 2019, a journalist introduced him as "probably the nuclear industry's most prominent critic in Canada" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW1CpAOr9HI (10min45). I do thank you for flagging the fact that his bio does not do justice to him. I am working to update and fill it out and will post new content and sources in the coming week or two. His short bio is also on the site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Does that qualify as a source 'about' him? https://thebulletin.org/biography/gordon-edwards/ He has also provided invited testimony to legislative committees and expert sworn testimony (e.g. to the US Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, although mostly in Canada) about two dozen times. These date back to the 1970s and 1980s so the earlier examples do not have online sources (as far as I know). I believe I can footnote them without an online link, according to wikipedia guidelines? talk — Preceding undated by PaceVerde added 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Repeat vote.— PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (you can only cast one "vote", I'm striking this duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Non-notable as a scholar. Not an expert on the yak. Keep as a notable activist with significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the SIGCOV? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you will find listed and hyperlinked 29 interviews with Gordon Edwards as an expert commentator on the subject of the Fukushima accident. https://www.ccnr.org/index_fuk.html That's just on one topic. You may not be familiar with Canadian media, but these interviews are on Canada-AM, CTV and CBC News - it doesn't get any higher profile than that in Canadian national news coverage.

On this page https://www.ccnr.org/index_A-V.html you will find well over 100 links to video and audio files including Gordon Edwards' in-person presentations as a guest speaker, media interviews - again, in Canada's top national media, webinars, and a presentation at the United Nations (side event to the 17th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKmZmIF6ms - where Dr. Edwards was one of two invited non-Indigenous speakers on a panel with 5 First Nations Chiefs and Grand Chiefs.

Please, for us novices, explain "significant coverage"? PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for us novices, explain "significant coverage"? Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability. A key section here is the one headeded General notability guideline which explains that:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful. So it sounds like someone being repeatedly interviewed in major media for their expertise/commentary would be significant evidence of their notability. PaceVerde (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent. It is the subject talking, and talking about himself is a primary source too. But the reason for the interview might be indicative of notability. If he approaches an organisation and offers talking points, maybe not - because that is again not independent - but if a major news network approaches him for comment, then the question is: why did they approach him? In particular, if he has been written about as an expert, they might approach him for that reason. But then, the source we need that demonstrates notability is the independent person who has written about him and his expertise. It was this kind of source I could not find. But if there are such sources, then I would change my view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that last statement makes little sense - if the person was approached repeatedly by the media for comment, then clearly the media had a reason to do so, especially on national television (they don't just pick names from a hat). The existence of the hundred plus media interviews and documentaries with the person is in itself proof of notability. PaceVerde (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what I was saying is that often, as you say, someone is picked for interview based on established expertise. But not always, in fact. But assuming he was picked for his expertise, what we need to see here is the basis for that establishment of expertise. Why did they think he was an expert? What has been written about him? Where is he discussed? When they picked him as an expert, what was their basis for thinking he was an expert? That is what we need to see. Do you have those sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (note: searching works better on "gordon edwards nuclear" - that eliminates others with the same name. "Scientist" doesn't narrow it down to him.) He doesn't meet NPROF; there are few articles in G-Scholar and they are hardly cited. I don't think we can consider him as an author - he wrote some (many?) opinion pieces but I don't see proof that he became a kind of "opinion celebrity". The most that I can find is the student newspaper The Gateway, which has a handful of paragraphs about a talk that he gave. That doesn't really count as being "about" him. I can change my mind if some folks find other sources. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources I cited above? (In my reply to Ghost of Dan Gurney.) The 29 interviews on national television about the Fukushima accident alone? And over 100 video and audio files of media interviews, public speaking engagements, press conferences, panel discussions and webinars in which he is a featured speaker and commentator? Please look at those, I have provided the web pages above where you will find all these links. Clearly he is a 'go-to' commentator on nuclear energy, or as you put it, an "opinion celebrity". PaceVerde (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an additional source 'about' Dr. Edwards: https://raven-research.org/dr-gordon-edwards-in-nb-to-talk-about-nuclear-energy/ This is on the website of a university-based research project, based at the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. The project was funded for 5 years by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), a research granting agency of Canada's federal government. PaceVerde (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I note that the week is up today and this is due for closing. I have voted delete and remain unconvinced sources will be found, but I note the active attempts by new user PaceVerde to understand Wikipedia notability and to demonstrate notability. As the learning curve is steep, perhaps we can give this another week to see if they are able to find any suitable secondary sources. They are clearly familiar with the subject, and if anyone can find what is needed, it will be them, but they will need to understand what is required first. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated. Yes, additional time is needed to confirm sources, understand the policies and make the changes. I also note that there is no consensus in this discussion. I hope there will be when edits have been completed. PaceVerde (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The no consensus close was disruptive editing by an account created today. I have reverted it. We will need an experienced closer for this AfD owing to the high level of disruptive activity. It would be a pity if we had to request page protection for it as it would prevent you from taking part, so I would make a plea to other SPAs to leave this alone and let the process work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can someone more experienced than I evaluate the sources PaceVerde has provided here in their various comments? They seem to be mostly interviews, which I think are probably considered primary. But if that many organizations are interviewing him about Nuclear Energy then it's hard to see how he is non-notable in that field. It's a bit too complex for me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with a possible alternative to deletion being redirection to Anti-nuclear movement in Canada. (Note that the organization Edwards heads does not have its own article). I see a start towards GNG (or perhaps WP:NPROF C7), but it surely looks short of WP:SIGCOV. Disclosing that this article came back to my attention (after earlier seeing on delsort) as a result of the disruptive close by SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A comment before this closes -- I am undertaking a source analysis and have also found some promising new sources myself, which I will post in full in the next few hours, if any closers can wait a bit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undertaken an expanded source assessment below addressing the newer sources linked in the article and this discussion, as well as some I found myself.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Canada might put its most dangerous nuclear wastes on shores of Lake Huron			three quotes from Edwards but the sole content about him is "Gordon Edwards, president of the nonprofit Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, based in Montreal"	✘ No
Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple	? This may be a press release from Environment North, who are hosting one of his lectures for their annual meeting		Full article is coverage of Edwards' lecture tour and background	? Unknown
CEGEP Vanier College, Mathematics Department Faculty list			This is excellent as verification of his role but since it's just his name on a list, definitly not sigcov	✘ No
1974 Nuclear Debate : G Edwards vs E Teller (TV 48m)			An interview with Edwards can't be coverage of Edwards, though it sure suggests cultural prominence	✘ No
How I Became a Nuclear Skeptic	literally by Edwards	?		✘ No
Expert weighs in on nuclear power		Student newspapers are I believe considered reliable for events on campus	533 words solely focused on Edwards' background and talk	✔ Yes
The Friendly Atom			appears to just interview Edwards (though I didn't watch the full documentary to see if it also has secondary discussion about him)	✘ No
Nuclear Courtship			Primarily interview with Edwards, but does have a few minutes about him as introduction, including recapping the debate with Teller evaluated above (which is framed as a historically notable event)	✘ No
Dr. Gordon Edwards in NB to talk about nuclear energy	? Not sure if the host of the event can count as independent for coverage of the event	Not convinced a research org's blog really counts		✘ No
There is more than one Dr. Gordon Edwards		? Appears to be a letter to the editor	A very fun piece from a different, pro-nuclear Gordon Edwards, seemingly annoyed by prior coverage of this article's Edwards	? Unknown
Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums			248 words solely focused on Edwards' upcoming talks and his background, e.g., "The forums are to feature retired mathematics professor and media personality Gordon Edwards, who is currently president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The 82-year-old Edwards obtained his PhD from Queen's University in the 1970s. He has been speaking about the potential perils of the nuclear industry for several decades."	✔ Yes
Two small communities are competing to receive Canada’s inventory of nuclear waste			Edwards gets three quotes as an expert here, but the coverage is not of him	✘ No
Nuclear coalition head warns of SEU			849 words solely focused on recapping a presentation by Edwards at a recent public meeting	✔ Yes
The people versus nuclear power: public participation in the energy debate ]interview with Gordon Edwards, chairman, Canadian coalition for nuclear responsibility], in the scholarly journal Perception, vol 2, 1979			? I can't access the full article, but by its title appears to be non-sigcov since it's an interview... though my gosh, having a featured interview in a printed scholarly journal is much rarer than getting a soundbite in a news article, and seems like a sign people are taking note of him. Likely also some biographical coverage as introduction here.	? Unknown
Nukes, climate change are both threats, say activists			two quotes from Edwards but not really sigcov of him	✘ No
Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change (book)			? Edwards is quoted for the epigraph of ch 3 on Nuclear Waste, and he and his ideas get about three paragraphs of discussion in that paragraph, plus one more in ch 4 on Nuclear Proliferation. But in the scale of a whole book that's not so much (ie no chapter just on him) and much of the focus is on his ideas rather than background.	? Unknown
Burying nuclear waste, exposing nuclear authority: Canada's nuclear waste disposal concept and expert -lay discourse, 2008 dissertation			? Cites Edwards 14 different times with small bits of discussion. The citations are all about him rather than about nuclear power, but each is just a sentence or two.	? Unknown
Profoundly Misunderstood: Nuclear Energy in Ontario, 1940s – 1980s, 2024 dissertation			? Three sentences in a whole dissertation probably isn't enough for sigcov, but it did seem promising to find it there. The full discussion of Edwards is "The CCNR, the largest anti-nuclear organization in Canada, was chaired by Dr. Gordon Edwards, who participated as an expert witness and prominent participant in the Royal Commission. Edwards oversaw every opposition submission to the Royal Commission, which will be discussed below. When cross-examined by AECL lawyers toward the end of the process, Edwards admitted every anti-nuclear submission was neither information nor public information but propaganda 'in the non-pejorative sense.'"	? Unknown
Math teacher aims to solve nuclear puzzle; Introducing . . . Gordon Edwards, Montreal Gazette 1989			510 words solely focused on profiling him as "a leading anti-nuclear activist in Montreal"	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I am personally persuaded of a keep here. There is a lot of borderline coverage, which starts to add up when it is considered as a body of forty years of expert quotations and mentions; I am particularly tantalized by how many dissertations make nods to him (more than just the ones I evaluate above). But the clincher for me is the 1989 profile of him in the Montreal Gazette as a notable resident; in conjunction with the coverage of some of his lectures and events (such as "Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums"), I see GNG for him as an activist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this extensive work. Not sure if it would belong in your table, but he is also co-author of the following:

Mathematical Sciences in Canada

Issue 38 of Background study - Science Council of Canada

Issue 37 of Background study, Science Council of Canada

Volume 37 of Science council of Canada : Background study

Authors Klaus P. Beltzner, Gordon D. Edwards, Albert John Coleman

Edition illustrated

Publisher Science Council of Canada, 1976

ISBN 0660003880, 9780660003887

Length 339 pages

Subjects Education › General

Mathematics / General

PDF found here on University of Ottawa website. https://www.uottawa.ca/research-innovation/sites/g/files/bhrskd326/files/2022-08/background_study_no._37_-_mathematical_sciences_in_canada.pdf

Could be relevant to the comment above suggesting WP:NPROF. It includes his detailed bio (as of 1975). Also if one is considering his notability as an academic (college professor), he earned a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship (1961) - is that considered a "highly prestigious academic award or honor" (national or international)? According to WP:NPROF, that alone qualifies as notable. PaceVerde (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that Edwards is co-author of will be relevant to the deletion discussion, for the same reason that interviews are not relevant: Wikipedia articles are based on what other people say about him. If there are any reviews of his publications, however, those would be relevant. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm honoring an informal request to relist this discussion. Just an aside, positing conspiracy theories or speculating on some "nefarious person" serves to undermine the speaker's position and are, by and large, ignored by experienced editors who would be reviewing this AFD discussion. Focus on Wikipedia's standards of notability and whether reliable sources providing SIGCOV exist, either in the article or brought into this discussion. Right now though, a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion so those editors wanting to Keep this article would be wise to spend their time looking for better sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment that "a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion," I count 8 keeps in this discussion. Three of them are near the top in a reply and two comments copied from an earlier nomination. Those individuals seemed not familiar with the convention of stating "Keep" at the start of one's comment, but they are clearly for keeping. At the moment I see 4 deletes and one weak delete. I am aware this is not a vote as per guidelines. PaceVerde (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mean, we have confirmation of the Nuclear Responsibility group and he's written articles [2], but nothing about this person. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found several new sources in ProQuest, included in my source table above: I would describe several of them as being about him, especially the profile in the Montreal Gazette. Does your assessment include those? I only ask because I’m concerned I didn’t make my finds clear enough. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an Entymologist (bug scientist) with some coverage [3], but it doesn't appear to be this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm persuaded enough by LEvalyn's expanded SA table to strike my delete !vote, but will stop short of changing my !vote to keep as I cannot verify the sources on ProQuest myself. Am now neutral. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have struck my delete above having reviewed the source analysis by LEvalyn above. I think it is still marginal, but I think the range of these sources is sufficient to take this over the line. My specific comments are as follows (I am just going to treat the sources as numbered from 1-19 in the table rather than duplicate the table, and I will not mention sources where we both agree they don't add to notability):

Source 2: I agree with you that this looks like it is off a press release so not independent.

Source 6: Edwards came to the student campus and this is the student newspaper report of it. The article is long, but what i actually says about Edwards as background is just “Dr Gordon Edwards, an expert on nuclear energy and the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,” which is pretty much off his website. I don’t think this is significant coverage about Edwards

Sources 11&13: Local press, articles as you describe them A lot of people will take these asis. I tend to be a little sceptical, but the range of local press across more than one locality is worth noting.

Source 16: This open access book does not appear to be independent. It says: "Gordon Edwards, quoted at the start of this chapter and whose work substantially informed this chapter, is President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility." (page 23)

Source 17: PhD thesis. I couldn’t find the coverage as I was only getting a preview. This may be a good one. Where it talks about Edwards, is this information from which a page could be written? The thesis does not have to be about him, but to be significant coverage, it must discuss Edwards, so that we have something the article could be written from. This is a definite maybe.

Source 18: MA dissertation. We usually only use PhDs, although, to be honest, I have some issues with that, as our standards are much lower when it comes to other things - but I won’t sidetrack onto that. You already had it as questionable, and it remains so.

Source 19: Agree. This one counts.

So all in all, there is one that I clearly agree on, one source that may also be very good. We need multiple sources to pass GNG, but my feeling is that given one clear one, and the range of the others, I don't think there is a clear case for deleting this article. Note, however, that the title is wrong. He is a mathematician, not a scientist (as per the amusing source among others). He is notable for heading up his campaign, and not for being a scientist. A page move would be in order after the AfD closes to a title that corrects that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in in such detail; you’ve given this AfD a lot of careful and generous attention. I think your enumerated concerns are fair except for the book, which really looks independent to me. Saying that Edward’s’ work substantially informed a chapter strikes me as scholar-speak for “Edwards is influential and I read a lot of his writing” not “I personally know or ever spoke to Edwards”. Edwards is not thanked in the acknowledgments nor is he quoted from anything but public sources so I would be surprised to learn he was involved with the book. (But, the source may still not be solid for GNG since he’s proportionately a small part of the book…)

I agree that “scientist” is wrong. I think “anti-nuclear activist” would be most accurate to how the sources refer to him, even during the period that he was also a math teacher. But I’m neutral on what the new title should be. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(activist) should suffice as disambiguation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not swayed by the sources in the last table above; marginal sources one and all. If we had at least ONE decent story in a RS about this guy I might be ok with a weak keep, I'm just not seeing enough coverage to show notability. Still a !delete from me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He comes up in newspaper articles in the 70s and 80s [4], [5], [6], bu they're just him speaking about xyz subject in the field, attending a conference or talking about it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note in the new SA, the article "Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple" is not a press release, it is a guest column in a newspaper, The Chronicle-Journal (Thunder Bay, Ontario), author identified as a climatologist with Lakehead University who is also vice-president on the board of directors of Environment North, a charitable organization. The fact it is published in a daily newspaper with a significant circulation and owned by a known newspaper publisher makes it independent. That would now make 4 independent, reliable sources about Edwards in the SA. [User:PaceVerde|PaceVerde]] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I will be getting to edits and additions of sources soon. There's a lot of work in double-checking and formatting correctly the source information, especially for 1970s to 1990s sources. PaceVerde (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LEvalyn's work up above is persuasive enough for me, showing four reliable sources which cover him in enough detail. Others considered reliable but not necessarily with significant detail can be used for verification of facts. If kept, I'd recommend a move to note him as an activist, as that seems to be really what he's most known for. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 03:13, 20 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 Sins of the Shovel. This is how I read the consensus of this discussion. If an editor can work on improving the book article, that would be ideal. If the author creates other notable work, this decision can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Morgan

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

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creep^Talk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, not yet notable under WP:NAUTHOR (only one book) or WP:NPROF (too early career, doesn't meet any of the criteria). -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added: [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work). Whether you frame it an article on the author or an article on the book, the content is the same, making it rather inconsequential which one is the 'notable' entity. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, United States of America, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, which is at Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a stub on the notable book, as alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, there is one, not sure how I missed it the first time either: Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, thanks. It was created from the content of this article, which the creator of the article on the book then blanked and redirected there. Which was... unorthodox. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).

The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.

I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of significant or well-known work in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to do so, but I think if you looked back through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2 you would find many. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book an 'event'? – Joe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sins of the Shovel, with nothing preventing a future WP:SPINOUT. I find myself in this column because this stub article—as it stands now—reads like a résumé. I could find nary a personal detail in the sources, which without exception pertain to the book and not the author. What is lacking here today is inherent notability of the author apart from the book. In the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Anson (closed as keep), if not for the subject having died and obituaries written about him, the article otherwise had the same rationale as here for redirection (I'm not even sure that "... played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ..." applies to Anson the author specifically, or to others who were more directly involved in the backstory of The Amityville Horror, such as George Lutz (redirect) or William Weber ... but I digress). StonyBrook _babble 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to book. Simply being an author of a book is not notable as notability is not inhereted, subject has not recieved significant other coverage. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sins of the Shovel. If a two-sentence stub is all we can produce, despite all the discussion of high-quality reviews, I can't side with the narrow, literal reading of a SNG to !vote keep here. There might be cases where Joe's reading of that guideline is right – this is not one of them. Toadspike [Talk] 22:29, 25 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 merge‎ to Letts, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letts Corner, Indiana

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

This is a bit of a puzzle, because the sources are contradictory as to whether this and Letts are the same place or not. The history of the county which is referred to by both articles, for example, says "As the Letts Corner State Bank has played an important part in the life of our subject, it may be of interest to note a few facts regarding this well known business institution," but the very next sentence begins, " The Letts State Bank was organized by Leroy A. Eckhart[.]" There's mention of a high school which is referred to various as the Letts high school and the Letts Corner high school— unless they are two institutions, which seems quite unlikely considering their proximity. The railroad station was always in Letts; the supposed location of Letts Corner shows no rail service. My inclination is to treat them as a single place but if someone can find something that clears this up otherwise that would be a big help. Mangoe (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 12 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!} 22:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Decatur County: Interim Report, Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, 1999. p. 85 writes "The village of Letts was laid out in September of 1882 by Joab Stout and others . It is situated in an area of rich farm land , and has therefore been a center for grain exportation . In 1868 Allen W. Letts built a store on what is now SR 3. The settlement that sprang up around this store was known as Lett's Corner . [...] After the completion of the Vernon , Greensburg & Rushville Railroad to the east of Letts Corner in 1880, the village grew in the direction of the tracks and was renamed simply Letts ." So arguably the two articles should be merged. --Soman (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite helpful. Thanks for finding it. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect would indeed be the wisest choice here. TH1980 (talk) 01:56, 22 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest Herald

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

(NPP action) I attempted to improve this article's sourcing, but in the process I've come to believe that it's a hoax. None of its references mention a "Bucharest Herald", and a Google search returns only an online news website that was probably founded around 2008 – in other words, completely unrelated to the 1990–2005 newspaper that this article claims to describe. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Romania. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a short-lived "The Bucharest Herald" in the 1940s. However, there is no indication it existed in the 1990s or later.Anonimu (talk) 14:20, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Mykhailovych Vasylynyuk

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

Bio of a recently deceased Ukrainian subject who does not appear to be notable. Apparent memorial page. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 21 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. Consensus that sources in the article show notability. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 21:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Arnold (footballer)

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

No evidence or claim of notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Football. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and Julia Arnold played in the 2022–23 DFB-Pokal Frauen final. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman. This article should be notable. Karol739 (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is also an artist 1 (page 8 and 9) 2 (page 4 and 5). Dougal18 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:52, 19 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. There was no support for the proposed merger with Ami Ayalon. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a Palestinian, I would fight those who occupied my land

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

No claim to notability, and was clearly created with a political slant. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might make sense if this was a super well-known phrase that had been analyzed as such in multiple outlets. Instead, the article is about the various times Ayalon expressed this kind of sentiment and notability is very much in doubt. It's also true that the article has serious NPOV problems. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems not to be coherent as a standalone article. I think for a quotation like this to have an article it would have to rise to the level of Ich bin ein Berliner or similar. Other than that it probably belongs as part of the biography.Andre🚐 01:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ami Ayalon could be expanded with material about this, but this standalone page is excessive and slanted. Not sure what the deal with all the italics and quotation marks is either. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is about interviews and human right that says all people have a right to defend their land, Whatever race they are and whatever status they have. This article has an implicit reference to human rights and human equality and is compiled based on clarified documents. championmin^Talk 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't disagree with what your saying. This just isn't the place to make the point.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random quote. No encyclopedic notability. NOTNEWS and NOTRANDOM apply. gidonb (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a phrase like Sí se puede, with a longstanding legacy/impact. It is likely too soon for an article on this. Given developments and Ami Ayalon's prominence, that COULD change, but I don't see this passing a ten-year test as of today.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. I understand the sentiment, but it’s just not notable. Cf. Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance we could WP:SNOW this? Seems fairly decided. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden scope and retitle: The encyclopedic topic here is something like Israeli politician statements of empathy with Palestinians or Israeli acceptance of Palestinian right to resist, and should cover the examples in this source: Massad, Joseph (2024-09-16). "Why Israeli leaders admit if they were Palestinian they would fight for freedom". Middle East Eye., among others:

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Amichai Ayalon's article Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any sources that would make this article notable. As a fun aside, when I search for just the title on Google the only result that came back was this article on enwiki. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:22, 25 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 Ion (mythology)#Attic tradition without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoples

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

I'm unsure that this meets WP:GNG. Currently all the sources are primary, and although the subject definitely has coverage in secondary sources, they are not of a significant level. Cremastra (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Greece. Cremastra (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ion (mythology), which can comfortably include a list of his four sons.— Moriwen (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ion (mythology)#Attic tradition. Probably not enough secondary sources for a stand-alone article, but as a real piece of relevance in mythology this should have some place on Wikipedia. And at that target, at least the epynomous connection to the Hoplites is not yet present and should be included. Daranios (talk) 14:50, 24 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 and SALT. Owen× ☎ 21:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rugby

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

Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-SALT. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources in my own WP:BEFORE, and there's certainly nothing to work with in the article. No valid redirect target either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only prior AfD for this was almost 19 years ago. Since then, it was correctly deleted several times under WP:G4, and a few more times under speedy criteria that are no longer used. By itself, "previously deleted" is no longer a valid reason to delete the page. We need consensus based on source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the citations in the article provide sigcov, and I did not find anything in my web searches (though these were inevitably swamped out by the subject's own articles). Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 25 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. Even after discarding !votes based on the current content rather than the notability of such a list, we are still left with valid arguments on both sides, and no consensus materializing after three weeks. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing sports films

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

Topic fails WP:LISTCRIT, as there is no reliable source on how an items appears on the list. Interpretation of what is or is not a sports film comes off as failing WP:OR. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79 in 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#List of highest-grossing sports films here in 2024. Two years ago, the article was discussed for deletion, since then, per the second discussion topic this year it has been described as being in a worse state, specifically due to WP:OR, as there is no clear definition of what is or is not a sports film, the list is made up of material selected per choice by editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, these sources seem to discuss the articles subject [7], [8], [9]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while a quick Google search will supply anyone with similar lists, thats not the issue with the article, it's that definition of what the genre is is not clear, and the inclusion of films is up to debate. These lists don't even agree with each other, so how do we classify this? (one lists the Pixar film Cars as the highest grossing, while the other lists The Blind Side, list can't be properly built upon vague interpretations on highest grossing if there is statements like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously. My favorite ridiculous entry is Babe - sheepdog trials. Barry Wom (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep if there something that someone thinks should not be there or a film that should bring it up on the talk page and it can be discussed Fanoflionking3 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that one user or another decides whether a film belongs on the list, it's that there is no general consensus on what type of film belongs. As it can't be properly classified due to a lack of significant coverage, the list is unsustainable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who first brought this up. This isn't an issue of "theres coverage for it" its that it is a definitional impossibility that conflicts with sports films and list of sports films. And it isn't something that can be fixed either by going through it and saying what is or is not a sports film based on sourcing because the whole thing is a failed exercise that cannot be undone. It's not even a split list as its contents contradict the other lists its supposedly split from. As an encyclopedia this article is so all over the place that while everyone here is debating Babe i'm noticing that according to it the top sports films of all time are Inside Out 2 and the entire Fast and the Furious series alongside the Dragon Ball anime. We could go into a deep philosophical discussion about "what is a sport anyway" but instead this article exists as a fork from sports movies for no reason. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring up Babe is about sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport see about sheepdog trail being sports https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not in denial of it being treated as a sport, what is and what isn't a sport film is less abundantly clear, so we can't just apply items like this. It's not clear what constitute the sports film genre per the links earlier that have different criteria. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Wp:NLIST (Sources covering that very topic exist, see GNews hits, for example) and can be considered a WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we need a definition for a sports film then (i always considered that t being about a sport event or training for a event) Babe (using this as example) is about babe training for a sheep dog trail then complete in the trail. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the genre is that is vague and unspecific. As shown by the two links above, there is no obvious connection between what is and what isn't. This is why an editor above may laugh at the idea of Babe being a sports film, while other may not. We can have our own personal definitions, but as that's not categorizable, we can't say what is higher grossing than the other. If a film were specifically about baseball we might be able to have some sort of list, but that would be relatively fringe. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings are clearly sports film (rockey for example), whiles others could be question (babe for example) using babe a done a sample of what we could do.Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could do something like this, we do not need to every film just any witch someone question. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rank	Film	Year	Worldwide gross	Ref	Sport(s)
1	Babe^[a]	1995	$254,134,910	^[2]	Sheepdog trial

I think the talk page would be more appropriate for this, as the genre does not seem to be very specific, I don't think a list like this can be really be built on any foundation without some more strict details of what the genre may include. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notes

^ in the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport^[1]

Keep as a notable stand-alone list topic even though the list's current contents and approaches are garbage. The problem is defining a sports film as opposed to films that have sports in part, like considering Forrest Gump a sports film is WP:UNDUE. I do oppose the more complex and cross-categorization lists that are embedded in this list article per WP:NLIST since some just get plain indiscriminate. I would support a hard-ass culling of this list. Regardless, there are reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies, so the scope is 100% tenable. We have to overcome the sloppiness of this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there being reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies necessarily means that the scope is 100% tenable. If those sources do not agree what counts as sports movies and what does not, there does not exist a consensus scope, but an equivocation. Do the sources actually agree on the scope in a way that makes for list criteria that are clear-cut and enforceable here? TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the scope is 100% tenable. The problem is with how to present the details. We definitely have reliable sources writing about the highest-grossing sports films. Do we see these sources naming Forrest Gump and Babe as sports films? Or is it certain editors being ridiculously and erroneously pedantic here? Furthermore, reliable sources are not published with Wikipedia suitability in mind. So can we find a way to work with their coverage? Other approaches here could be to avoid an overall list and instead have various embedded lists by sports (e.g., highest-grossing baseball films). Or we could redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have different ideas about what it means for the scope to be tenable. If the best we can do is redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table, I would not consider the scope to be tenable. I would not even consider the scope to be tenable if we have to avoid an overall list. I'm sure we can find somewhere on Wikipedia to include the words "highest-grossing sports film(s)" with some relevant content, but that's a much lower bar. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think TompaDompa's suggestion might be best. Being the third...fourth...fifth highgest grossing sports film is not something commonly applied to any film as an achievement and would be unmeasurable. Being the highest grossing sports film of all time or something is something you could potentially cover. The rest is just numbers games that we can't apply as with even sourced material above, there appears to be no consensus to what is and what isn't considered a sports film from person to person. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge.
As for what should be done about this list, specifically, if it is to be kept in any form whatsoever (be it as a stand-alone article or as part of some other article) it categorically needs to be demonstrated that it is actually possible to have inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA, or in other words that there actually exists some kind of consensus among the sources about what belongs on the list and what does not. What we currently have fails the requirement from WP:LISTCRITERIA to Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. That goes for a lot of these lists. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a mirror of BoxOfficeMojo with some summaries ... that doesn't update as often. No effort to indicate when these statistics are captured or how out-of-date they might be. Or how they might compare across decades. And so the information is better kept at its source, and such an article offers no value. The inclusion criteria is between absurd and unenforced: there are silly entries (like *Babe*). But also entries for movies that haven't earned more than $10 million -- how could they possibly appear on any "highest-grossing" list? *Ben-Hur* for the "sport" of chariot racing? Come on. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see what value this article provides to the reader either. Reflecting the comment above, it is impossible to keep up to date. The problem is effective sourcing is another problem. I don't see its value as a standalone article. scope_creep^Talk 13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this debate is not about whether the current contents of the page are to be retained, but whether the list could be compiled such that it meets LISTCRIT and other relevant guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but overhaul. Passes NLIST: "Highest Grossing Sports Movies" CNBC, "These Are the Top 10 Highest-Grossing Sports Movies" Sports Illustrated, "Highest-Grossing Sports Movies" Forbes, "Can you guess what the highest-grossing sports movies are?" Sports Illustrated again. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 19 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!} 04:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wizeline

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. All references are press releases and "top 10 companies" listings. Google News search returns no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Dan • ✉ 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 22 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 Nomination withdrawn. Svartner (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)‎[reply]

Willman 1

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no individual coverage found for this cluster. Sir MemeGod  17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sir MemeGod  17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a lot of academic papers on this object including experiments looking into dark matter. I've updated and added the sources on the page including academic papers and a couple books. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep: Multiple sources of significant coverage are available, including those in the article references. Praemonitus (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I had looked it up I found nothing, then Dr. Vulpes added the references proving its' notability. With this, I will withdraw. Sir MemeGod  20:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to become familiar with Google scholar. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:42, 18 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) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collinder 140

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, could not find any individual coverage. Sir MemeGod  17:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  17:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, I had to refine my search but I did find individual coverage for this object. Sir MemeGod  18:57, 18 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 List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India as an alternative to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Premier League

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:51, 23 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 List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India as an alternative to deletion, based on parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uttarakhand Premier League. RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madhya Pradesh League

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 18 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 18 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 List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India as an alternative to deletion, based on parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uttarakhand Premier League. RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 18 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rajasthan Premier League

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 18 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 Luminous (book) with the apparent blessing of the page author. Owen× ☎ 21:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Dreams

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

Fails the books notability guideline. The article is based mostly on primary sources and has only one independent review, which does not establish the notability of the subject. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more useful sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Australia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the problems with the article. I created it during a time when I still had the impression, that fulfilling notability is not considered as important if the author is very well known. Egan's novel Schild's Ladder for example up until a few months back didn't even have a single reference and almost completely consisted of only plot summary. It still contains not even a single review (although I intend to add the one I've found for the german article soon). The same holds for "TAP". I only realized afterwards that it was because the articles were created in 2003 and 2007 respectively, when the guidelines in their current form probably didn't even exist yet. Afterwards, I tried to improve some articles already created, but didn't find much more to add to establish notatbility. Hence if the article gets deleted, I'm okay with that. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Adrian Antz: Thanks for your response, I appreciate your candor about the subject's notability. To save some time, would you be okay with this discussion being speedily closed under CSD G7? Full deletion is probably not necessary per the alternative to deletion below. I also just came across "Induction" (short story) and "The Safe-Deposit Box" today, and it would save time if the same could be done for that article instead of an AfD nomination. Let me know what you think. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luminous (book), the Egan book this story is part of (and that the above mentioned review is for). No indepedent notablity. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 19 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!} 17:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Maharaja Trophy KSCA T20

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The season of a non-notable cricket tournament. Fails WP:GNG and WP:OFFCRIC. AA (talk) 14:32, 22 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!} 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cricket league which fails WP:OFFCRIC and WP:GNG. AA (talk) 00:21, 21 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!} 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League

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

Domestic league with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cricket league which fails WP:OFFCRIC and WP:GNG. AA (talk) 22:30, 19 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Taça da Liga

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

Disputed draftification. Draftify until something happens, like the event at all. WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support draftify as an ATD as this is TOOSOON. There is no SIGCOV of this event to satisfy N. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done a WP:BEFORE talking about the SIGCOV, in the language most associated with the tournament? May 2023 article on new format [10] May 2024 article on entrants [11] Article four days ago on fixtures [12]. I've never heard that articles on tournaments have to be hidden away before they actually start, and doing so with a month to go seems like a waste of everyone's effort. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve by adding references. The tournament is clearly notable. In my opinion, it's not a WP:TOOSOON since the matchups were determinated for the first round of the tournament, so there are some useful contents in the article. Lâm (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get this nomination, it's the equivalent of the EFL Cup in Portugal. There are sources online, have you even done a WP:BEFORE? [13], [14], [15]. Sorry, but this is a pathetic nomination and you should be WP:TROUTed. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speed keep – Competition just over a month away from being started, article created within the expected time. Svartner (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing national tournament, clearly notable, bad nomination. Giant Snowman 18:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Just improve the article. No need to draftify. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - We have sources about the new format, the final location and the fixtures. Why remove this from view until it starts in a month's time? Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:42, 20 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 Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 112

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkmenistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recent discussion suggests one of the two sources listed to be generally unreliable. Aviationwikiflight's discussion of the lack of secondary sources, coverage, and impact only reinforce this editor's position. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. There seems to be 2 glaring problems here: effects and sources. As for effects, it is well known that the USSR covered up many aviation and aerospace disasters, not to mention Aeroflot planes were crashing what seemed to be every week, so it doesn't seem that important. However, the fact that it is the deadliest passenger aviation crash in Turkmenistan seems relevant enough to me to warrant the page staying. As for sources, the crash is listed on aircrashinfo, a popular aggregate source for plane crashes, and they helpfully list all of their sources where they got the crash info. As it turns out, the 2 sources cited in the article do not pop up in this reference list, so information about this crash must be somewhere in aircrashinfo's references. Thankfully, I found a few that cover this time period and are available in my university's library, so if I get the time I'm more than willing to see if I can find any more relevant information from a real source. If I hit a dead end, it's probably better for this to get deleted. But in the meantime, I'm willing to give it a shot. SouthernDude297 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt the sources listed would provide significant coverage of the event beyond a mere trivial passing mention. Per WP:GNG, sources should be secondary, meaning that the sources must provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. If the sources do, I would be inclined to reconsider the nomination, but for now, you seem to be arguing that currently, the event isn't notable. And just because "Flight ___" was the deadliest in x country doesn't mean it should warrant a stand-alone article, unless it can meet the necessary requirements to have a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 23:39, 21 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steuart Campbell

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO without independent sources. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notability is demonstrated by the author having published books, and by his work being cited by others (see the first AfD). Better sources need to be found, no question. John (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand why this was submitted for deletion because there were no references on it originally. Unfortunately users over the years have been lazy. I have added some sources, there are also a lot of newspaper articles that mention Steuart Campbell (I have access to Findmypast and Newspapers.com) so I can expand the article with other sources. This for me is a keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Out of the 12 citations now in the article, a total of 5 appear to be independent coverage of the subject and his works. Coverage could therefore be better of this science author - but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt particularly as Psychologist Guy has confirmed further sources which would support WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 21:31, 18 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 List of IC objects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3622

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

Fails WP:NASTRO as a galaxy in the IC (historically non-notable in deletion discussions), and discovered post-1850. Could not find any significant coverage that would make the galaxy pass WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects; no significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of IC objects. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the redirect to List of IC objects. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:03, 24 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 List of NGC objects (1–1000). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 142

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO as a galaxy with little to no independent coverage. Sir MemeGod  15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. There's just not enough scholarly content to make a decent article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 20 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 List of NGC objects (1–1000). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 135

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

Even though this is one of the 7,000 NGC objects, it was discovered after 1850 and does not seem to have any coverage (failure of WP:NASTRO). Sir MemeGod  15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. Only a brief mention found.[16] Praemonitus (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per all above this comment. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 19:26, 24 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 List of IC objects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4516

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

No notability, failure of WP:NASTRO, discovered after 1850, and no individual coverage. Sir MemeGod  15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects; although it's a cD galaxy, there was little significant coverage found for IC 4516 or 3C 306. Praemonitus (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of IC objects. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:43, 24 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 List of IC objects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4026

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

The main reasoning is a failure of WP:NASTRO, but I could also find no significant of individual coverage of this object. Also discovered after 1850. Sir MemeGod  15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects. There is some discussion in a paper by Trentham and Mobasher (1998), but that doesn't seem enough to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of IC objects. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:44, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhejiang Normal University East Stadium

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

Unable to find any sources conferring notability. Most mentions in any sources appear trivial. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and China. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venues of the 2022 Asian Games#Outside Hangzhou

Lâm (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per Lâm. Svartner (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Zhang, Bin 张斌; Jin, Lu 金璐 (2023-09-16). "（杭州亚运会）浙江金华亚运场馆：草坪像"毛毯"，灯光会"跳舞"" [(Zhejiang Jinhua Asian Games Venue) The lawn looks like a "carpet", and the lights "dance".] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-09-19.
  The article notes: "9月19日，金华市体育中心体育场和浙江师范大学东体育场将迎来杭州亚运会第一轮足球小组赛的对阵。浙江师范大学东体育场同样经过改造，其草坪用肉眼看上去十分平整，实际上却是中间高、两侧低，有千分之三的坡度以防止雨季草坪积水。为此，工作人员在铺草时还运用卫星定位系统来确保精确。据工作人员介绍，金华市体育中心的体育馆和体育场所用灯具与杭州亚运会主场馆“大莲花”同款，这些LED灯有着节能环保电费省、坚固耐用寿命长、光线柔和无频闪、色彩丰富造型多等诸多优点。"
  From Google Translate: "On 19 September, the Jinhua Sports Center Stadium and the Zhejiang Normal University East Stadium will welcome the first round of the Hangzhou Asian Games football group match. The Zhejiang Normal University East Stadium has also been renovated. Its lawn looks very flat to the naked eye, but in fact it is high in the middle and low on both sides, with a slope of 0.3% to prevent water accumulation in the lawn during the rainy season. For this reason, the staff also used the satellite positioning system to ensure accuracy when laying the grass. According to the staff, the lamps used in the gymnasium and stadium of Jinhua Sports Center are the same as the "Big Lotus" main stadium of the Hangzhou Asian Games. These LED lamps have many advantages such as energy saving and environmental protection, low electricity bills, durability and long life, soft light without flicker, rich colors and many shapes."
2. Zhang, Feng 张峰 (2023-01-09). "亚运新景观丨3个城市，8座比赛球场，杭州亚运会足球赛，你准备去哪看" [New Landscape of Asian Games丨3 cities, 8 stadiums, Hangzhou Asian Games football match, where are you going to watch]. Qianjiang Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-09-19 – via Toutiao.
  The article notes: "浙江师范大学东体育场将承担3场男足小组赛和1场女足小组赛。项目改造提升涉及足球天然草坪、球场照明系统、扩声系统、功能用房、电视转播系统等方面，最多可容纳12241名观众同时观赛。主席台一侧座椅为亮红色，对侧橘黄色座椅中，还镶嵌着白色的四个英文字母：ZJNU，这是浙江师范大学英文的首字母，是浙师范的专属印记。足球场的天然草坪达到国家一级场地认证标准，采用了全自动天然草坪种植层APP远程监控系统，能对各项数值做到全时监控和预警。场馆还有智能灯控系统的一键启动，球场照明系统照度可达2000lux，是现有足球场地照明标准的最高级别。"
  From Google Translate: "The East Stadium of Zhejiang Normal University will host 3 men's football group matches and 1 women's football group match. The project renovation and upgrading involves the natural football turf, stadium lighting system, sound reinforcement system, functional rooms, TV broadcasting system and other aspects, and can accommodate up to 12,241 spectators at the same time. The seats on one side of the rostrum are bright red, and the orange seats on the opposite side are inlaid with four white English letters: ZJNU, which are the first letters of Zhejiang Normal University in English and the exclusive mark of Zhejiang Normal University. The natural turf of the football field meets the national first-level field certification standards, and adopts a fully automatic natural turf planting layer APP remote monitoring system, which can monitor and warn all values at all times. The venue also has a one-button start of the intelligent lighting control system, and the illumination of the stadium lighting system can reach 2000lux, which is the highest level of existing football field lighting standards."
3. Dong, Yixin 董易鑫; Ji, Junlei 季俊磊 (2022-04-16). "杭州亚运会足球小组赛赛场草坪：每周"理发"约两次" [Hangzhou Asian Games football group stage lawn: "haircut" about twice a week] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-09-19 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "位于金华的浙江师范大学东体育场将举行杭州亚运会足球小组赛，这里的草坪更新养护工作便由沈伟宏主要负责。这里种植的草坪是特殊培育的品种，草皮下面的铺设结构大致可以分为喷灌系统、排水盲管、砾石层、无纺布、约10厘米的中粗砂层、营养土(种植土)等。[quote] 据悉，这块草坪目前的色泽密度均一性、张力、平整度、渗水率、球的反弹率及滚动速度等各项检测数据均已具备承接国际赛事的资格。"
  From Google Translate: "The East Stadium of Zhejiang Normal University in Jinhua will host the Hangzhou Asian Games football group matches. Shen Weihong is mainly responsible for the lawn renewal and maintenance work here. The lawn planted here is a specially cultivated variety. The laying structure under the turf can be roughly divided into sprinkler irrigation system, drainage blind pipe, gravel layer, non-woven fabric, about 10 cm of medium-coarse sand layer, nutrient soil (planting soil), etc. [quote] It is reported that the current testing data of this lawn such as color density uniformity, tension, flatness, water permeability, ball rebound rate and rolling speed are all qualified to host international events."
4. "心心相融杭州亞運之旅系列：浙江金華傳統與現代交相輝映" [Heart to Heart Hangzhou Asian Games Journey Series: Tradition and modernity complement each other in Jinhua, Zhejiang]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2023-10-08. Archived from the original on 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-09-19.
  The article notes: "浙江師範大學東體育場：足球這場館總建築面積8,391平方米，在改造提升過程中，從足球場天然草坪、球場照明系統到擴聲系統、功能用房、電視轉播系統，都嚴格執行「綠色、智能、節儉、文明」的辦賽理念，足球場天然草坪達到國家一級場地認證標準，塑膠跑道達到中國田徑協會一類場地認證。"
  From Google Translate: "Zhejiang Normal University East Stadium: Football The stadium has a total construction area of 8,391 square meters. During the renovation and upgrading process, the "green, smart, frugal, and civilized" policies were strictly implemented from the natural lawn of the football field, the stadium lighting system to the sound reinforcement system, functional rooms, and television broadcast systems. According to the concept of hosting games, the natural lawn of the football field has reached the national first-level venue certification standard, and the plastic track has reached the first-level venue certification of the Chinese Athletics Association."
5. Jiang, Xiaolai 江小来 (2023-03-28). "杭州亚运场馆show丨浙江师范大学东体育场" [Hangzhou Asian Games Venue Show丨Zhejiang Normal University East Stadium]. Zhejiang Online [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-09-19.
  The article notes: "浙江师范大学东体育场为亚运会足球项目比赛场馆，位于金华市婺城区，在金华亚运分村西北方向且相距约7.1公里。... 总建筑面积8391平方米，观众席位数11349个。"
  From Google Translate: "The East Stadium of Zhejiang Normal University is the venue for the Asian Games football event. It is located in Wucheng District, Jinhua City, about 7.1 kilometers northwest of the Jinhua Asian Games Village. ... The total construction area is 8,391 square meters, with 11,349 seats."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhejiang Normal University East Stadium (simplified Chinese: 浙江师范大学东体育场; traditional Chinese: 浙江師範大學東體育場) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:51, 19 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4651

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

No individual coverage, ails WP:NASTRO. Sir MemeGod  15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in many sources, some of which can be seen in the reflist. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur, it's a well studied cluster. Praemonitus (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?[17] Praemonitus (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Praemonitus. Object of academic interest. Svartner (talk) 21:44, 23 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!} 16:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OvalX

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

Other than routine coverage like [18], [19], there is nothing significant about this forex broker to pass WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. The content appears to focus primarily on promotional material --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:52, 20 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!} 16:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MRC Markets

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. At least, there is no coverage in Australian publications per my checks. Gheus (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Austrian, now moved to Austrian AfDs.--Grahame (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, for an organisation with an office in London, unusual to get no coverage (even passing) in Google news. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate the company's long-term notability or significant coverage, failing to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines--Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:22, 21 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!} 16:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirose Financial

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. I tried to locate references in the UK newspapers/magazines but couldn't find any. Gheus (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks mainstream mainstream media coverage. The only mentions seem to be WP:TRADES.

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. asilvering (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Forex

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Lacks in-depth independent coverage outside of WP:TRADES. Media covered the death of Integral Forex founder but they are not useful to prove notability of his company. Checked Turkish Wikipedia article, same case, a lot of citations from unreliable trade publications. Gheus (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Turkey. Skynxnex (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability, focusing mainly on promotional content. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:57, 20 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. asilvering (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FXOpen

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Forex-related references are not useful per WP:TRADES. Gheus (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Cyprus, United Kingdom, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. A search in google news looks like a lot of sources but most of it is routine and forex related. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 23 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 List of IC objects. asilvering (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4141

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

No individual coverage in scientific journals were found after a Google search. Most of the references to this galaxy seem to be large-scale catalogs, such as TheSkyLive or Seligman. Sir MemeGod  14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. It doesn't appear notable. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 19 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. asilvering (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSS J0248+1802

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, too scientific for the average reader. Sir MemeGod  13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence of real notability here, and much of the text of the article consists of irrelevant details about measurements that aren't needed or useful in a WP article. Aldebarium (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No significant study was found of this individual object. Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a non-notable luminous quasar. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:29, 21 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. asilvering (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dholakia Foundation

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

The organization in question does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, as outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the Dholakia Foundation page should be reconsidered as the foundation meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The foundation has been featured in leading media such as the Economic Times, Entrepreneur Magazine, and CBS News, showcasing its significant contributions to environmental conservation and social welfare. Its work in constructing over 150 lakes and planting 3 million trees has earned global recognition, including accreditation at the 2023 UN Water Conference. Given the foundation's widespread impact and recognition, both nationally and internationally, the article complies with notability guidelines and warrants retention. Njoy deep (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 14 sources cited in the article are either irrelevant to the subject or press releases and there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jeraxmoira. Sources are found to be WP:ROUTINE and announcements. No significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 24 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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh (unit)

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

Doing a Google search I cannot find more than a couple of papers where this unit is mentioned, and it is not part of any of the unit standards I can find. Rather than a PROD I am doing an AfD just in case it is used somewhere. If it is, then please add sources and description to that context to demonstrate why it should be retained. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One straightforward way to check for usage is to look at papers that cite a paper establishing a term, in this case "The rayleigh: interpretation of the unit in terms of column emission rate or apparent radiance expressed in SI units" [20]. Checking citing papers [21] gives a good long list, of which I checked the first 10. Of these, 8 make explicit use of the unit, and devote at least a short passage to defining it, so I think we are good. Of particular note is p. 22 of this thesis [22] which gives an in-depth definition that we should adapt for the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear evidence of significant coverage in sources linked above. In addition, editor discussions within the talk pages of the MOS lend validity to the notability of the subject, even if it is rather obscure and not an official SI unit. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we have to be very careful not to conflated how we consider SIGCOV for citations of academic articles compared to in news or similar. A good comparison should be how BLP are judged. The most definitive notability is when something becomes a generic, so is quoted without citation e.g. general relativity. Dropping down a level in physics (excluding HEP) I dont think anyone would question the notability of a paper with > 1000 citations, or > 100 in the first year or two.
- A Google search would show if Rayleigh has become a generic -- it has not.
- The original paper has 176 cites on Google Scholar since 1956. While relevant, that is not strong SIGCOV. It has 3 cites in 2023-2024. Note that not every paper that cites it will discuss the units.
- The second has 44 cites since 1974, certainly not particularly significant.
- The third has 58 since 1976, better but it also discusses an alternative definition so IMO is weaker.

My interpretation remains that this is not really a notable topic, and the wider community has not voted major support of the idea. If they had it would be a widely used generic unit. Just my opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., I do not see the MOS discussion as supporting the notability, in fact the opposite. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...what. It's a scientific unit that is used in at least 50 peer-reviewed studies. That makes it easily notable enough for an article. You are operating on some very strange metrics here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am being a rigorous physicist. A paper cited in 50 peer reviewed studies is not particularly notable, for instance in physics it would be counted but far more would be needed for tenure. For a BLP in physics (not HEP) a rough estimate is that their should be 50 papers all cited more than 50 times, i.e. an h-factor of 50. Perhaps compare to unconditionally notable terms such as the 1968 Ernst equation which is cited 1159 times, 1968 Broyden's method cited 3816 etc; there are many, many more. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument as to whether the Rayleigh is generic is curious. A review of linked pages provides multiple references using the unit in the generic sense (i.e. without citation/explanation). Refer to [23], [24], and [25]. The pages using these sources do require editing to comply with MOS but that is another issue. Moreover, I think we would all agree this is a very niche topic, and so it is appropriate to expect a certain amount of difficulty in finding numerous RS to satisfy SIGCOV. Jtwhetten (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "notability" pruning is distressing. It'll force a lot of decent Wikipedia pages into the Wiktionary. Why should Wikipedia strive to have less to say about less things? Urhixidur (talk) 02:05, 23 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 Barossa Valley railway line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plush's Corner railway station

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

Non-notable "railway station" on South Australian railway line that closed in 1956. Surely does not meet, and is incapable of meeting, WP:N. Cabrils (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barossa Valley railway line. Several of the sources actually refer to this as a siding, not a station, and none are more than a few sentences except the last which I question the reliability of as it's just a person's reminisces. Does not appear notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is "incapable" of meeting WP:N, that suggests there's something inherently unnotable about the topic. However in this case I agree the topic is unnotable, and support redirecting to Barossa Valley railway line where it is mentioned. Cremastra (talk) 12:32, 22 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 13:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shun Kumagai

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

His claim to notability, playing 154 minutes in the J League and 12 matches in Singapore, is weak. An absence of sources with significant coverage means that he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Cambodia, Japan, and Singapore. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While it seems like some sources could exist in languages other than English / Japanese where I can’t find them given that I don’t speak Chinese or Cambodian, the sources existing on the English and Japanese pages don’t seem to be enough to give notability, nor can I find any. Given his downwards movement through leagues it doesn’t seem likely though. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:26, 21 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 13:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shunkun Tani

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

His claim to notability, playing 5 matches in the Japanese third league as well as some amateur competitions, is very weak. An absence of sources with significant coverage means that he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Spain. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the sources on ja:谷俊勲 ? Did you check them out? Govvy (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 19 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 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shunsuke Sunaga

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

His claim to notability, playing 18 matches in Singapore, is weak. An absence of sources with significant coverage means that he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 19 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. There is a clear consensus that this list is notable and the size of this article is not (yet) a problem. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottawa Charge draft picks

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

I am not persuaded that this qualifies under WP:NLIST. There are also only two years here so far. In a few years this will be unmanageable, and doubtless better handled by a category, and conceivably a navigation template for each year, with a link to the next and previous years. Here for discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ice hockey, and Canada. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of New York Rangers draft picks. It's a new league; there have only been two years worth of drafts so far. Let the maintainers of the page determine what's manageable or not. --Mike Vitale 11:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Draft picks are typically very well covered for professional sports leagues and are often considered a defining aspect of a player's career. Additionally, organization draft picks are typically discussed in a fashion that would meet WP:NLIST. I recognize the list isn't very large right now, but I believe it still meets NLIST and it will continue to grow so long as the league doesn't fold. As for manageability, that's certainly not a concern, as we actually have quite a few list of players drafted that make it to featured list status, 7 of which are for NHL team draft histories. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only other place for this would be on the Ottawa Charge article itself, and I can see this list as getting long and unwieldy over time. If the league doesn't last long, then I'd support merging the content, but in the meantime I don't think it's necessary. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merge if the league folded. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:32, 20 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) as nominator. Thanks to user Perception312 who found a much better source. (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajarsi Janakananda

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

fails WP:GNG, not covered in reliable sources independent of the subject. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Polygnotus (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hinduism, Spirituality, California, Louisiana, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject received significant coverage by NPR, the Kansas City Star/Times, and the Kansas City Business Journal. The article also cites a 1952 book by Richard Fowler, Leaders in Our Town. Perception312 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that book is described as "The Inspiring Stories Of 116 Leaders In Our Town." and it is only 77 pages so I don't think that means much if anything. 1.5 inspiring stories per page! And the Kansas City Business Journal is physical spam. So what you have is a short article in a 1959 local newspaper and the NPR piece. Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles, one from 1959 and one from 1966. Perception312 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say that the Kansas City Business Journal is spam? Is American City Business Journals not a reputable publisher? Perception312 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We used to receive that kind of physical spam all the time back in the day, but then they made a law against it and now I never see it anymore. It provides hardhitting journalism such as "Bank parent promotes KC exec into new role", which is an article about the fact that someone got a promotion and not to forget "KC taco joint will get a new name", a breathtaking story about the time a local taco shop changed its name. Riveting. Polygnotus (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this source, America's Alternative Religions, which twice mentions the subject in relation to the religious movement he was a leader of. Perception312 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah one of those mentions is his name listed in the index of the book. And the other mention is Leadership of the SRF was taken up by James J. Lynn, who after taking sannyasa was known as Rajarsi Janakananda. He served as president of the SRF from 1952 until his death in 1955. So that source does nothing for notability. Polygnotus (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated by the index and the reference, the second mention is on page 184: Probably Yogananda's greatest financial benefactor was James J. Lynn, a self-educated farmboy from Louisiana who ... became a very wealthy businessman. He often testified that he suffered from "nervousness" before he discovered kriya yoga. In summary, the subject is notable for funding and leading the NRM started by Yogananda. Perception312 (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is WP:INDEPTH WP:SUSTAINED coverage in WP:RELIABLE sources that are WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. A sentence or 2 is not enough. Polygnotus (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: "Embodying the Civilizational Connection: Yogananda and Saint Lynn", a detailed section in Chapter 2 of a newly published book, Golden States: How California Religion Went from Cautionary Tale to Global Brand by Eileen Luhr. It starts on page 92. Thank you for spurring me to find this excellent source. It will take me some time to read it and add it to the article, but now we have at least three independent sources that cover the subject in detail: NPR, Kansas City news articles, and Eileen Luhr. Perception312 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perception312: I skimmed it and that looks like a much better source! Also google her name, she has written other stuff that may be of interest to you. I don't really think that a very old newspaper article, or physical spam, or half a page in a book "counts" (in the context of GNG), but this source certainly does. Polygnotus (talk) 16:14, 19 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 11:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Ramazanov (fighter)

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

Fails to fulfill WP:MMANOT with no wins over significant opponents, bouts only in the second tier organizations and FightMatrix ranking of #65 at highest. Also, does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Ticelon (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NMMA (or WP:GNG), as he ranked #65 in the world according to fight matrix. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. My search for sources found databases, fight announcements, and results--all of which are typical for any pro fighter. In addition, most of the references are from sources that are either deemed not reliable (like sportskeeda) or not independent (particularly One FC's articles). His ranking is probably overstated at fightmatrix since it lists 4 Russian fighters named Murad Ramazanov, all with non-overlapping fight records (which probably explains the one fight in 5 years gap in the main fighter's records). Counting the fights in the gap he no longer has his long unbeaten string or 12-2 professional record, because fightmatrix shows a 2-3 records for those "other" fighters with the same name. Papaursa (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Murad Ramazanov's are the same person, that region of Russia has many guys who share the same last names or first names, it's like Viet people and the last name Nguyen. There are pictures of the other Ramazanov's in tapology and sherdog, showing it's not the same Murad in PFL, especially since he has a distinctive look.

[26]

[27]

[28]

Murad 1 and 2 are the same person, but not the PFL Murad, and Murad 3 is a completely different guy at a different weight class HeinzMaster (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HeinzMaster for the additional information. I guess the bottom line is still that none of the Murad Ramazanov fighters are WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 21 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!} 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology

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

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. Delete or merge with Visvesvaraya Technological University or NITTE as per the existing affiliation. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 6 sources on the page. 1 2,3,4,5 sources can not be reached and 6 is just a table of different universities and the subject does not even have entry in it. Even if there was entry, it still is a poor source with no significant coverage. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:28, 19 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!} 08:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kanabar

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. His company is also nominated for deletion. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promotional content, clearly failed WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Monophile 💬 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page has WP:PROMO all over it. The subject did not make any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Promotional, but the subject also does not have enough news coverage. There were a few announcement type articles, that may have come from a press release and there was an article about his stamp collection.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 24 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!} 08:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruva Advisors

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

A purely promotional page WP:PROMO for a company with no credible sources WP:RS. It does not meet the standards of WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 11:49, 18 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!} 03:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Central African Republic, Washington, D.C.

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

The one source provided merely confirms who the ambassador is. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Central African Republic, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 11 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!} 07:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for notability for several years without improvement. Article entirely relies on primary government sources. No indication secondary sources exist providing significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 13:36, 18 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. ✗plicit 05:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Waghmare

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

Bit-part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 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!} 07:23, 18 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

AfDs for this article:

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

it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 11 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!} 07:22, 18 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 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!} 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The foreign-language articles behind the interwiki links look completely alright from a sources+notability perspective. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:40, 19 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 IIT Delhi. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Library, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

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

no non-primary sources found. Sohom (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it for now, need to add more independent sources. Xegma(talk) 04:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the associated educational institution. It's history will still be there in the unlikely event independent sources can be found. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 13:45, 6 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!} 06:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify that is still possible, it is not too late. Give the originator a chance to find true secondary sources. I think they should exist, but they might not be in english. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original creator has had two months to add such sources. Sohom (talk) 02:10, 13 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!} 06:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right ! the sources might not be available in english , it might be available in hindi langugae which is the most common language in india 150.242.22.239 (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some research papers were added in the reference, which are related to the central library of IIT delhi 103.27.10.106 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an IP editor (possibly Scntst0009 logged out?) has posted their response at the original creator's talk page instead of to this discussion.[29] I see an argument for the notability of the institution (IIT Delhi) but not for the library. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IIT Delhi. It's kind of a nice article, but it just doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. As @4.37.252.50 points out the history will still be there if sources emerge later.

All the inline cites are from primary or non-independent sources (i.e., IIT) other than the Business Standard article which doesn't mention the library. Three papers that were added do seem to move us some way forward but on closer inspection fall considerably short of the line:

DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology seems to be from a non-predatory journal (at least it's on this list which claims to exclude predatory journals. It's significant coverage of the library. BUT it's written by two librarians at IIT.
Journal of Information and Knowledge is maybe from a non-predatory journal but it is more about a piece of software AND it's co-written by an IIT librarian
UCL article is about a visit to UCL by a representative of IIT and seems to be based on an interview. It's maybe good as a cumulative article where there was one longer piece of SIGCOV and some multiple shorter independent sources like this, but it's not enough on its own.

Oblivy (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IIT Delhi per Oblivy. I was reluctant to !vote this because, like Oblivy, I think it looks like a nice article. But there isn't really a case for this being independently notable. GNG and NORG are not met, and the content reads like what you would find in the student handbook, but not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 26 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 Tony Yeboah. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obed Yeboah

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

Non-notable football player. Completely lacking WP:RS, and none would likely exist. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ghana, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: Where? Cabrils (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Coverage is nearly all from his club. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see it and I had a five minute look on google. Question to Ortizesp where on earth do you see significant coverage?? Govvy (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Yeboah, where I just added him, per CHEAP and ATD. Not proven to be individually notable. It would be great if everyone can get behind this compromise. Pinging all previous participants in the debate: Ortizesp, Govvy, GiantSnowman, and Cabrils. gidonb (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be content with this re-direct, good suggestion @Gidonb. Cabrils (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fine with a redirect. Giant Snowman 10:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 18:32, 23 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!} 05:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MP Port Dickson F.C.

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

No-notable sports club. Fails WP:NTEAM, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:19, 19 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!} 05:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Becker (musician)

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

Non-notable German DJ/songwriter. Nothing to indicate he meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, and would seem unlikely to be able to. Cabrils (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cabrils. I've had a good look for references and found nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Knitsey (talk) 16:32, 19 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!} 05:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Briars Rugby

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

Non-notable sub-district rugby club. Zero WP:RSs. Fails WP:NTEAM, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite existing for over 100 years, could find no significant coverage in searching google news, google books and Australian database Trove. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 23 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!} 05:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft@Home

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

Notability is not inherited, and this article is entirely sourced to tangential trivial mentions in articles about Pack.PNG and Herobrine. However the Minecraft@Home team is not independently notable or GNG-passing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I am left a bit confused by the sources. It is unclear to me whether Minecraft@Home is the name of the group of people who are undertaking these projects, or whether it is merely the name of the tool they have developed to make their discoveries. If it's the former, then this would be a good little article, but if it's the latter then I don't think it works. Regardless, the sources are giving very scant information about the people who made these discoveries happen, which is really sad... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a feeling for a while the group could possibly be notable and I was willing to be patient, but after closer examination of the sources, I'm agreeing with Zx here. As for the confusing regarding what it is, this article is very poorly put together, and was even weaker when it was first made, so it makes sense why Maplestrip was confused. But it is in-fact a group, and I was at one point part of it. I don't know if that means I have a COI or not due to the group's nature but that shouldn't matter as I think the article should be deleted anyways. λ NegativeMP1 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like NegativeMP1, I thought the sources cited here might demonstrate WP:SIGCOV as they are reliable secondary sources, but they never quite go beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. The group is already mentioned in the Herobrine article, appropriately briefly, and this article is very short anyway, so there would be no point in merging. Masskito (talk)
Delete: I have to agree with the editors above. As of the latest revision by RNGHit where they removed 3 sources, here's how the sources could be put: Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 14 are not about Minecraft@Home and they are trivial mentions. Sources 3, 6, 7, 8 and 13 doesn't talk about it at all. 9 and 12 shouldn't be here. The only thing notable here is Pack.PNG, but even that would fail WP:SUSTAINED as can be seen on Draft:Pack.PNG. win8x (talking | spying) 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Making this article was kinda pointless since it doesn’t meet notability criteria. RNGHit (talk) 22:53, 18 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 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyong-il (footballer, born 1988)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea where his name is mentioned. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Lâm (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:23, 18 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Tubb

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2010. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found a short staff-written bio at AllMusic here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the AllMusic bio linked above I found this from Goldberg Magazine here which also quotes pieces about her by Opera Magazine, and Musical Times. Also, there is this review of one of her records in Gramophone here, and another review by AllMusic here. Also finding a lot of Google book results, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of small articles around and I have already expanded the article itself. More can be done with a bit of research. BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. I have removed a lot of the promotional language and extraneous biographical detail that appeared to be original research which is not allowed per WP:OR and WP:BLP. I have removed the "BBC" as a source as if you look at the actual archived page, it cites Wikipedia as its main source (!). I have also removed the Opera Magazine and Musical Times quotes for now until someone actually finds the actual sources for those. But given the length of her career and number of recordings, there are a wealth of reviews which are easy to find via Wikipedia Library, ProQuest, etc. which satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE (notable body of work), arguably WP:NMUSIC (prominent in early music scene), and probably WP:GNG (she did give a lot of interviews over the years so it will take a while to sift through the to find the "best" that also includes objective third-party interpretation rather than straight Q&A "take what she says on face value")...I've added the Gramophone review referenced above, as well as an excerpt from the The New York Times. This article could still use more work...but there is plenty of "colour" here about this bold and distinctive performer, like in this 1993 review in the Vancouver Sun. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Fever

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

Single source article, showing no RS or SIGCOV. Film was direct-to-DVD and has no visible cultural impact. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entries in the following books including critical assessment: https://archive.org/details/videosourcebookg0005unse/page/2460/mode/2up?q=%22Prairie+Fever%22+%22Stephen+Bridgewater%22 ; https://archive.org/details/radiotimesguidet0000unse_n4y0/page/954/mode/2up?q=%22Prairie+Fever%22+%22Stephen+Bridgewater%22 and in Western Movies: A Guide to 5,105 Feature Films, 2d ed. - Page 254; and in Catálogo Do Cinema Faroeste - Vol. 2 - Page 82 and Movies Made for Television: 2005-2009 - Page 82 AT LEAST. Has a BEFORE been performed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those do not qualify as RS per WP:NFSOURCES. "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ and find some of those sources individually significant; their sum would be significant anyway, making the film meet the general requirements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did remove the sources added.....and I obviously restored them. NOTHING in WP:NFILMS says these sources (whose assessment regarding their significance I contest anyway) cannot BE USED. And to remove so many sources during an AfD (especially when you are the nominator!) is bordering disruption. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (Also indicating that NFILMS indicates that those sources would be "non-RS" (!) when quoting a section about significance, not reliability, is plainly erroneous.[reply]
If all you can find is a bunch of mentions in listing guides, that argues against notability, not for it. Per WP:NFSOURCES, such listings do not constitute RS, proving only that WP:ITEXISTS. As for their sum being significant, quantity does not equal quality. See WP:SOURCESEARCH. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree with pretty much everything you say (except self-evidences such as "quantity does not equal quality" etc, obviously) but I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough! Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 17:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reviews in the New York Times, The Times Herald and The Tampa Tribune which is enough for GNG. There's also additional coverage here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews, especially the latest ones to be unearthed (NY Times can also be accessed via Google) puts this subject miles over the notability bar. Geschichte (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources reviews identified above such as The New York Times, The Times Herald, and the Tampa Tribune that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 24 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. ✗plicit 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice

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

One review (which is questionable reliability wise), nothing else found in a search. Self-published. Does not pass NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found this work used as reference in others: here, here and here. Scholar doesn't bring up much more. Also listed here. Not much else. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:26, 18 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!} 02:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Taitano

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

No longer meets WP:NMMA or WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Nswix (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the coverage to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He won less than half of his MMA fights. According to fightmatrix.com, he won none of his 8 against top 25 ranked fighters. His fightmatrix rankings are strange. The article mentions his drawn catchweight fight against Kojima--Kojima was the #1 flyweight and Taitano was the #71 bantanweight. A two round fight sounds more like an exhibition. Taitano's next fight was against an unranked fighter and fightmatrix had Taitano as the #8 flyweight, apparently ignoring the fact his ranking was from a fight where he was a bantamweight against a smaller opponent. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:47, 21 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!} 02:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eichhorn Young

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little significant coverage. Seems to be a WP:MILL voice teacher with an unremarkable performing career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found a couple of interviews in minor publications, one of which is already referenced. Beyond that, I've searched on the key phrases in the article and I'm not coming up with anything. Per 4meter4, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Knitsey (talk) 18:32, 19 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!} 02:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McCall: The Solid Light Films and Related Works

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

Only one reliable source, I think. Only other thing I found is a few sentences from Reference & Research book news, which like that publication always does is more about the book's publication and carries no evaluative material on its content. There's also the kultureflash review which I am very uncertain of the reliability of, can't find any indications. If it is reliable I guess that makes two? Can anyone find anything else? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other usages I can find are either citations, but not significant coverage, of the book or coverage of the actual solid light films (some of which would probably meet WP:GNG!). hinnk (talk) 13:10, 20 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 keep‎. Nomination withhdrawn with no remaining delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Burt

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY. Have expanded article and added more sources. There is enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time, including her 2006 performance after winning an anthem idol competition at age 13 and her long track record as a child singer in Lindsay, Ontario, prior to her big break on the national stage in 2017 as the first Indigenous singer in Canada to be cast by the Canadian Opera Company, which was covered in Maclean's, Toronto Star , University of Toronto Quarterly, and others. Added a mention of her 2018 performance of an original work about the Mississaugas' creation story as well as review mentions in Opera Today on her portrayal of Sarah Riel in the Louis Riel opera, and opera critic John Gelks on her performance of an aria from La Cecchina at the Glenn Gould vocal showcase. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved using multiple reliable sources since nomination as detailed above. Therefore deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thanks to Cielquiparle for improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 02:43, 20 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!} 01:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boma Obi

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source she was mentioned was this. Aside that nothing else. The rest are just school profile while some of the source like the 4th one has nothing to show about than a home page of the site. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Education, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article calls her "a Fellow of the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)". I cannot verify this and do not know what it means; maybe the IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship? Honorary Fellows of IFLA [30] would be notable through WP:PROF#C3 but she is not listed there, so it must mean something different. The early career one would definitely not pass that criterion; it is a different meaning of fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography has a lot of statements with no source to back them up. Which fails to meet WP:PROOF and could end up be a WP:NOR. Just checked the reference on ref 2 and it says 404 page not found. Gabriel (……?) 05:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, I can't even verify that she's a fellow of the claimed organisations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPROF#3 and #6. Sources available cannot be used to satisfy GNG. Best, Reading of Beans 08:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a professor that doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Being a so-called Fellow of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions doesn't justify notability. The publications are very very poor, and can't be used to justify WP:NAUTHOR regardless. This list will tell you the lack of notability (former fellows). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. University librarian is a position that does not confer automatic notability, WP:PROF notability is not evident, and there are serious verifiability issues here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent a lot of time looking at the IFLA fellows/honor programs: spoiler, could not find her on any list of winners, so cannot verify most significant claim (may be a confusion of member w/ fellow). There are honorary fellows in the society, which I would call a WP:PROF#C3 pass, but she is not on that list. (We're not going to solve today a perennial discussion about whether librarians can qualify via WP:PROF; I think yes, but it doesn't matter here because she doesn't have that award). I think the IFLA Medal would also be a C3 pass. The Scroll of Appreciation and Early Career Fellowships should count towards notability, but are not C3-type/level awards themselves. But none of them can be verifiably applied to Dr. Obi. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:49, 22 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] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml

[Babe-3] "Babe".

[Babe-2] the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport^[1]

[a]

[2]

[1]