Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 19	June 21 >

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 merge‎ to List of Chicago Bears team records. ✗plicit 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL

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

Wikipedia is not a sports database. This level of detail runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, while also not meeting basic notability standards for lists. A higher level summary (i.e. the first table under All-Time Series) may be appropriate for merging, maybe into List of Chicago Bears team records, but this does not justify a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a highly trivial list and per WP:NOTSTATS. Frank Anchor 14:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I would support a selective merge to List of Chicago Bears team records on the condition that the list of Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games and holiday games are not included in such a merge. Frank Anchor 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I don't agree at all that the information is trivial. On the other hand, this is simply a repetition of results reported at multiple places on the net. E.g., [1], [2]. If there were more context and analysis, I might view it diffferently. See NOT STATS "(Extensive listings of unexplained lists"). Gonzo's suggestion to merge the main list into List of Chicago Bears team records also makes sense. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 20 June 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 Temple University as an obvious ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine

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

Fails WP: N. I can't find any secondary coverage about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Temple University. Fails WP:GNG, but per WP:ATD, we should merge or redirect to a related subject rather than delete if possible. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temple U per ATD. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only editor who was "notified" of this action [3] is an editor who's unable to either improve the article or participate in this discussion because the account was blocked sixteen years ago. Why didn't you notify any living editors, HyperAccelerated? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no provision for notifying any particular editor in WP: AFDHOWTO. Twinkle happens to notify the article's creator, and I use Twinkle for nominating articles for deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why notify anyone at all? And if you were going to notify just one editor, why choose a wiki-ghost? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Twinkle happens to notify the article's creator, and I use Twinkle for nominating articles for deletion." HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it now. Notifying editors is a suggestion not a requirement, it wasn't your intent to notify article editors at all, but the tool insists on notifying the article's creator. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricco Diack

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Coverage is limited to routine game coverage, team-affiliated sources, and sports databases; there are no examples of independent WP:SIGCOV of this individual player. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further sources, including an independent article which largely focuses on the subject, Ricco Diack. Additionally, this is a player that I am confident further material will be published on in the coming season. Partickthistle123 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Herald source is decent, but not enough on its own. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Could become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would support draftification provided @Partickthistle123 does. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with draftification, I will continue to update the page in draft form and add independent sources as they are published. Hopefully the page will become improved to the extent it can be fully restored. Partickthistle123 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The rough consensus turns into a clear consensus once the blocked socks and the non-P&G-based (canvassed?) !votes are discarded. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing supporting GNG in the newspaper archives I've looked through. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and the fact that this is the primary source for this subject demonstrates that the subject lacks notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairoz Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

I wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Being accused of sexual crimes doesn't add to notability. I don't see the notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more bugs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kundan and similar. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There is some coverage in WP:RS but it is not WP:SUSTAINED and no SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:16, 26 June 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!} 03:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birel

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

This article only references corporate sources. It does mention a book, but unless this book can be sourced - which it so far has not been. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for these reasons. Checking the Italian and Swedish versions for sources proved unfruitful, and with the book being prohibitively expensive to fix the reference (which is incorrect on publishing date) it is very difficult to see this being notable. JM 12624 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. JM 12624 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here some WP:SIGCOV, mostly in the historical archive of Corriere della Sera, accessible via WP:LIBRARY:

[4] "È Lissone la Maranello dei go-kart campioni del mondo", 30 April 1986 p. 32 (Milan edition)
[5] "In kart alla conquista dell'America", 12 May 1990 p. 45
[6] "È florida in Italia l'industria dei kart", 24 September 1977, p. 17
Coverage of a 2014 merger on Gazzetta dello Sport: [7]
An in-depth review of one of their karts on tkart.it, specialized magazine: [8]

Broc (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree based on these sources this seems notable, I don't have WP:LIBRARY access so much appreciated. If no other arguments are put forward this seems to pass WP:GNG JM 12624 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Broc. Being a well known brand like the since deleted Tony Kart, has so much potential for notability. WP:ATD would be to draftify. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber

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

Subject started her PhD last year, so it's likely too soon for a pass of our notability guideline for academics and I don't see any other indicators of notability. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Estonia, and France. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The reflist seems not to contain independent sigcov. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is normally the point where I would complain about the previous !vote not considering WP:PROF and where I would point out that sigcov is irrelevant for PROF. But in this case, the previous !vote is on-point. It's obvious she is far too junior to pass PROF, and the only hope is enough sigcov to pass WP:GNG instead. The only possibility, the koiduaeg.ee source, might be a reliable source for all I know but it doesn't have much depth of coverage about the subject. Nothing else in the article or in my web searches was even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 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. The arguments for deletion or redirection are strong, but ultimately failed to gain much support among participants. Feel free to renominate in one month. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opay

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. — Saqib (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::@Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding.~~ 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL, What made you say this? — Saqib (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @CNMall41, @Saqib, @Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggestedParwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[There used to be a {{ORGCRIT assess table}} here, in case anyone was confused about the hanging sig and replies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)] Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. ~~The fact is that other website you cited are blogs.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zhou Yahui as WP:ATD as per suggestion by Alpha3031 below. ~~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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.

I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:

This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.

You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?

Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN 2709-1317 – via AJOL.

Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).

Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.

Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.

Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:

this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.

I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [source1] [source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanderwaalforces, no doubt the company exists but neither of those sources meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Nairametrics article discusses the app, not the company and fails CORPDEPTH (I discuss this above) and the Businessday article appears to rely entirely on an interview with Folorunsho Aliu, group managing director of Telnet, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand WP:NCORP. Are those sources not part of being significantly covered or are you cleared on the deletion of this article? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't misread what I've said. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot be used to establish notability of the other. Nothing more, nothing less. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41, I don't know who you may be referring to, but experiences aren't measured by time besides age is just a number. If a new editor had read policies and still continue reading them, he/she can even do better than many years so-called experienced user. It's one of the arguments to avoid in a discussion. Analyse your points and give way for others, and not measuring people's days of editing here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear. My comment was directed at your comment suggesting that HighKing misunderstands NCORP. Yes, time and experience gives people a better understand of how it applies (and has been applied over time). --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Let me get you, are you arguing the article doesn't meet WP:NCORP when it meets the general notability guidelines? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me get you"....I am not sure what this means and I want to AGF but sounds like baiting. I am the one who nominated it for deletion so it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines in my opinion or I would not have done it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As editors have given counterposed readings of the quality of the sources cited, additional editors' impressions of the assembled bibliography would be highly beneficial to determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have debated that the article meets WP:GNG and in general, supersedes all other forms of "additional criteria". Arguing that an article doesn't meet WP:NCORP is not necessary when it meets the general. From the argument so far, I have said how the article meets GNG, and why NCORP is correct when it only initiates that an article might be presumed notable. I have given links to Google Scholar, CSE, and other archives or information research places including Google news; all were to indicate what is called WP:SIGCOV. Can the opposing !voters really clarify whether the article doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or lowering it to an additional criteria that presumes notability if there is no GNG. Aside all, and to balance the status, I provided the links to show SIGCOV. What else is then needed for clarification here? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem confused about how to implement our notability guidelines. GNG is a section within our WP:N guidelines which also has a section, WP:SNG dealing with specific topic areas and says "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". Unlike other topic areas, NCORP doesn't add any additional restrictions or criteria so in a real sense, there's no difference between GNG and NCORP, they're the "same" guidelines, with NCORP fine-tuned for this specific topic area, providing explicit guidelines on how to evaluate/ascertain the notability of corporations and organizations. The WP community have found it necessary to introduce SNG's for some topic areas because GNG is a general guideline and by its very nature, being general, can be vague and/or unclear and/or ambiguous when it comes to specific topic areas. Your argument that GNG "supercedes" all other forms of "additional criteria" is entirely incorrect and misconceived. The GNG and SNGs are all part of WP:N guidelines and if an SNG exists for a topic area, then according to WP:N, that's the one we use.
- With that in mind, the rest of your argument falls away. GNG does not "supercede" all other forms of "additional criteria" because there are no "additional criteria" in NCORP - and the logical extension means that if the topic fails NCORP it has also failed GNG since NCORP is simply providing the guidelines for the exact same criteria (albeit some criteria are applied in a stricter manner). In summary, once again and has been pointed out, none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP for the reasons provided above with reference to specific sections within NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You may have taken the wrong words. No one is arguing about SNG here. Though SNG and GNG are parts of WP:N, it's a good imperative to note that when an article meets GNG, there is no more argument to make. Clearly you seem to disassociate the both because you keep saying it fails NCORPS when the article in question meets the criteria for GNG. I think the error here is that no one seem to have addressed the sources I provided. Aside that, I am leaning on a strong analysis of sources from the opposing !voters. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind responding to deal with specific sources or questions relating to how we implement guidelines, but at this stage, this is a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Your questions have been answered, you just need to accept the answers. Your sources have all been dealt with and they fail GNG/WP:NCORP. You are also dominating this discussion and you need to step back to allow others a chance to respond. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have also removed the source assessment table. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am including a link so closers can review the source table as it would be good for them to see the evaluation. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has certainly turned into one of the AfDs of all time. I really don't see the point in asserting a topic meets GNG which supersedes NCORP when the 4 requirements are, to a word, identical: Significant, independent, reliable, secondary. I do not believe I can identify three souces meeting the basic, coverage-based criteria as applied to any subject. The analysis surrounding significant coverage seems to focus on whether a credible claim would indicate importance. For example, the central bank listing, the mention of winning an award, being approved to do business, among other things, are examples of claims that would avert an A7, but are not useful example of significant coverage, which requires that the topic of an article be addressed directly and in-detail. Similarly, having deep historical records with coverage all over the web does indicate potential for sources to exist, but are not actual sources, which is typically what is required at a deletion discussion. Pointing towards search engine results or random articles taken from those results is at best incredibly unhelpful, and at worst actively undermines to the case for retention.

There aren't any that particularly stand out positively, but the article in The Africa Report (ISSN 1950-4810 accessible via Gale) is a one sentence statement from them, and a few other mentions acknowledging their existence. That is very far from "directly and in-detail". THe article in The Cable is clearly marked as an ad, an assetion that it meets any of the four criteria would be nonsense. The Daily News Egypt is almost certainly also a press release. And sure, in any article article, it's fine to have sources that don't meet all of the criteria for establishing notability. Bringing that up at AfD, and not the sources that actually do establish notability, is only going to convince people that those sources don't exist. Of the best three sources provided by Vanderwaalforces, the article from Nairametrics covering the acquisition mentions the fintech subsidary in approximatly two sentences, neither of which are secondary; the app review is the guy selecting a bunch of reviews from the google play store... I suppose it might be considered "secondary" on a technicality, but the suggestion that it meets SIGCOV seems dubious, even if we are accepting inherited notability, which is not typical practice. I'm willing to accept the Business Day article as borderline, even though ORGIND would normally suggest that it be excluded, but that's still only one source, not the usual three we look for. I don't see a reasonable justification for this not to be a redirect to the founder Zhou Yahui or another appropriate page. If necessary, some content might be selectively merged, but I don't believe we have what it takes for a standalone article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primorial sieve

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

Blatant WP:OR: the unique source is not published and consists of vague consideration on a supposed algorithm that is not even described. D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. I did also look for this in a couple of textbooks on computational number theory and in the mentioned Scottish Book, and did not find it in either. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to Russ Woodroofe — The algorithm is a complete novelty, NOW-alijka (in Polish. It means fresh, spring vegetables eaten for the first time this year...), in Greek "εὐαγγέλιον", while in the Scottish Book the last entries were made by an officer of the Red Army entering Poland, in 1939, so you know...

BaSzRafael (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BaSzRafael, you are describing exactly original research. Wikipedia does not host original research, per WP:NOR. (That is what journals are for.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not remotely encyclopedic, woolly, rambling, uncited, and per the above actually unciteable, i.e. WP:OR. Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not notable"?

The algorithm blows RSA to smithereens, it will factorize 500-digit numbers (decimal) at lightning speed, almost in real time (on a very "fancy", thousand-core computer, of course).

"Not notable" — funny, really... BaSzRafael (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be unpublished original research based on a web page dated (in its source code) from yesterday. The article creator's pseudonym BaSzRafael bears some resemblance to the author name (in the web page source code) Rafael Szulc, suggesting that they may be the same person. The edit summary in the creating edit, "a completely new topic", could be interpreted as a statement that this is made up, and as a rationale for a WP:CSD#A11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David — what, in the face of paragraphs and judges — is TRUTH?

Because it clearly does NOT matter at all whether an algorithm is TRUE, whether it WORKS, whether it does what it says it does.

Well, there is clearly a war going on (here too). To maintain the primacy of the RSA algorithm. As I wrote above to colleague C. Chap , the "Primorial Riddle" algorithm blows RSA to dust, and powder!

"The first casualty when war comes is truth"

[ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hiram_Johnson ] BaSzRafael (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
„Primorial Riddle” - my search showed that the name "Primorial Sieve" is already taken... BaSzRafael (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something that somebody, most likely the page creator, made up one day. No objection to a speedy per WP:CSD#A11. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to D.Lazard

The algorithm IS described!

0. (Ground floor) We divide the number under study by the highest primorial #p — which "fills" no more than 100% of the integer variable used, which has a limited capacity (number of digits).

a) We check the remainder of the division, whether it is a prime number (this is only "on the ground floor"!), but necessarily greater than "p". This case signals that "a" CAN BE a prime number.

b) Otherwise, the number under study "a" is a composite number, and we have one of its divisors (or even two! — at least...)

1. We abandon the use of the primorial function, and from now on in the subsequent floors we use its "nephew": the Van function, choosing its upper argument so that the obtained product of subsequent prime numbers, starting from the lower argument and ending with the upper one — does not exceed the "capacity" of the variable used. The lower argument is the "ceiling" of the previous floor.

2. We check whether the remainder obtained from the division of "a" by #p — is a number relatively prime to "b", and to #p.

a) If so — then "a" CAN BE a prime number

b) If it has common divisors (and THEN there will be at least two of them!) then it is a composite number, and we have its divisors.

3. We loop the procedure from point 2 — that is, we define subsequent values for the lower argument (the "floor" of the Van function) and the upper argument (its "ceiling").

4. Each time we find any divisors of the tested number "a" — we divide it by them, and we only subject the RESULT of this division to further factorization.

5. We proceed in this way until we obtain ALL divisors of the composite number

6. If we do not find any, then they... do not exist! And the number "a" is a prime number, and with 100% CERTAINTY.

What do you not understand? After all, the algorithm is as simple as building a flail... BaSzRafael (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for the discussion whether the article must be deleted, not for claifying its technical content. If this content may be clarified, this must be done by editing the article, not here.

This being said, the above description is too vague for allowing to verify whether the algorithn is correct and, if it is correct, whether it is more efficient that the existing algorithms. In any case, it seeems to require to know all primes below a given bound, which should made it useless for the number sizes for which factorization is difficult.

Again, this is not to Wikipedia editors to check these things. This is for this reason that reliable WP:secondary sources are required. Up to now, no such sources are available D.Lazard (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer:

clear, simple and understandable.

I also thank:

all the participants of the discussion, even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry:

- Well, that's a shame, but I understand that Wikipedia is governed by certain indisputable laws, and I have to accept them, even if I don't like them and they act contrary to my expectations.

I also thank you for the fact that even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry, it has not been removed yet, but is publicly available and everyone can also express their opinion on it.

You have devoted your time to me, reading the text and then commenting on it - for which I am grateful. And I would be even more grateful if I received a handful of comments on what to do so that the text remains on Wikipedia. What should be improved in it, what should be improved?

Finally, I would like to pass on the optimistic message that I received from both Mikołajeks and the rest of the team:

- according to the new version, still warm like those buns straight from the bakery, they state that RSA is not threatened, because their belief that the algorithm presented here dismantles RSA - was a mistake, and it resulted from the fact that they did not take into account certain things that simply did not exist earlier in the developed theory.

If suddenly, overnight, encryption became ineffective, civilization would suffer irreversible losses. It would be simply a tragedy, no one would be safe, and certainly not the Internet.

BaSzRafael (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSA is not threatened because, as this article states, this method (if it is an improvement) improves on trial division by using multiplications instead of divisions, achieving only the speedup one would obtain from the relative timing of those two operations, a constant factor. Other factorization methods are far faster, faster than trial divisions by factors that grow very quickly as the numbers involved get large. Such non-constant speedups, even better than the ones already known, would be needed to threaten RSA. Compared to that, the difference between multiplication and division is trivial. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dziękuję za wyjaśnienia, przydadzą się. BaSzRafael (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:OR and clearly well past WP:SNOW at this point as well PianoDan (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. WP:OR. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 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 Boston Children's Hospital#Research. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Media and Child Health

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. All sources are research carried out , mostly by Michael Rich, but nothing independent discussing the center. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Children's Hospital as WP:ATD. The sourcing only supports "this is listed as an affiliation on research papers", which is insufficient for a stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Children's Hospital#Research, where it will fit nicely. The sources do not establish notability as they just mention an affiliation of the researcher with the center. Malinaccier (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Limited independent sourcing to establish notability for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia

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

On the face of it, this is a politician who should pass NPOL. But, I couldn't find any reliable source online that shows that he won the 2017 election in Uttar Pradesh. The results from the Election Commission of India show that a different person (Ashish Kumar Singh) won the Bilgram-Mallanwan Assembly constituency seat in 2017. My searches online didn't find any sources that would show that the subject passes GNG. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Strange that it was created in 2018 with blunder. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beachhead Solutions

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:

brief mention in WSJ

A short mention in a 2006 piece from The Mercury News: Beachhead Solutions in Santa Clara sells a $129-a-year service, Lost Data Destruction, which enables an administrator to send a command to destroy data on a laptop that has been stolen. If the thief tries to hook the laptop up to the Internet, it will send a message to the administrator and trigger the data destruction. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The funny part is that I can't find secondary sources to verify the articles content. The already existing sources, unfortunately are primary sources/nearly connected sources that doesn't even order any solution to WP:N and WP:V. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafkat Saeed

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes fails GNG clearly. I did WP:BEFOER and only found some WP:ROTM coverage. Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:07, 27 June 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. But if someone wants to actively improve it, happy to provide as a draft Star Mississippi 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ఐ 20

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

Reviewed during NPP. 2 of the 3 sources appear to be copies of each other (I couldn't access the third), and no reliable sources were found online. Does not meet WP:NFILM. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I have the feeling that this wasn't released on the announced date (14 June), so let's wait for release and reviews. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article title instead be the English translation? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title using another script doesn't help searching; regardless, I can't find mentions of this. The sources are listed as marginal reliability per Cite Highlighter, and I don't see any others we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 27 June 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 procedural close‎. This has been userfied by Bai0926 (talk · contribs) to User:Bai0926/Fashion in China (by way of various other titles that have been G6’d, with Clearfrienda (talk · contribs) being the one to place it at the right spot), with the resulting redirect being given an R2 speedy deletion by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion in China.

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

This should probably be deleted or even merged in some way to Chinese clothing, since only one person was involved and there's a lot of overlap with the existing page. Looking at the talk page I suspect it was a class project of some kind. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator, Bai0926, has userfied the article so it is no longer eligible for AfD. Part of the article was a blatant copyvio and a lot of it seems to be WP:CLOP. I've tagged the blatant parts for RD1. C F A 💬 14:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Nanda

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LSU Department of Finance

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

It does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub (talk) 01:06, 20 June 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 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Education, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom that the article content is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NOTBROCHURE. BrigadierG (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 25 June 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. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People in the line of succession to the British throne

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

Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is nothing more than WP:OR. Keivan.f^Talk 12:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All your concerns would be satisfied by changing the title to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Also, the selection of living people is formulaic and not subjective, and thus does not fall under WP:OR, and further sources can certainly be added to refine the listing; these are reasons to improve the article, not delete it.

Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing hypothetical about this. The list of people is firmly set in law. Whether it will ever actually be used is irrelevant to that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to state "if the line of succession were to be extended that far." There is a law that specifies the complete line of succession, and it does extend to everyone specified in the law. Your assertion that this later parts of the line of succession will never be used itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A law that you are interpreting yourself and then drawing conclusions about who could potentially be in this lengthy line of succession that no secondary source actually covers (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). The presumption that all these people could also drop dead together which would then force the Parliament to go look for a potential monarch from descendants of someone who died 310 years ago is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually incorrect to represent this as "a law that you are interpreting yourself". The article is based on an independent secondary source. There are many other secondary sources on specific branches that could be added. WP:SYNTHESIS allows routine calculations, which I believe applies to extracting living members from a list of people, a task that is completely mechanical and allows for very little personal interpretation. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Keivan.f. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This article does appear to violate WP:OR. However, if the editors of this article wish to improve it by adding reliable and diverse citations and sources to an acceptable degree, then I think the article could remain. @Antony-22's suggestion to rename to article to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover would be another good solution to the issue raised by the AfD, as the article's current title does feel quite misleading. Mjks28 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Largely WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and inevitably so in the absence of reliable secondary sources that extend beyond the top 50 or so in line. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles with a single source and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Vogel. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:18, 24 June 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 Leon Thomas III. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rascals (producers)

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

Could not find substantial coverage of the duo or recognition of their work, so no apparent notability by our standards. This should probably be redirected to Leon Thomas III since his article mentions the group multiple times and includes all the same credits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leon Thomas III. It turns out that the duo was nominated from a Grammy Award ([9]), though that seems not to have generated significant media coverage. I agree with the nominator that most of their media mentions are in articles about Leon Thomas, while his partner Khris Riddick-Tynes seems not to have done much outside of the partnership. It can all be described at Thomas's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling they would have a Grammy nod given the popularity of the artists they work with, but Grammy.com's search function broke recently so I couldn't find it there. Saw that article, but I must've missed the words "Grammy-nominated" in it. Thanks for the catch. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon Thomas III: I could have said merge but there is not much to merge. The article is majorly sourced from All Music that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Skabelkin

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

The person is not notable; sources are about companies or projects. Many facts are just there with completely zero sources 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

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

The person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. WP:MILL business person. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. No SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV:
1. https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО)
2. https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/
3. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html
See also 17,000+ results of Google Search in Ukrainian

Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine --Perohanych (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I stand by my delete here. References are trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Everything else is routine press releases. C F A 💬 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@182.53.28.77, this is a person. The applicable guidelines here are WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of trivial mentions and interviews among the available sources, but I'd count Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan and DELO.ua as sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG. If the consensus goes toward deletion, I'd recommend a redirect to Kyivstar instead of outright deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is trivial and consists only of passing mentions. The provided sources and WP BEFORE do not help establish notability. WP MILL and WP SIGCOV should be especially considered here. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Old-AgedKid please explain why Interfax Ukraine, EPravda, Forbes Kazakhstan, DELO.ua and forbes.ua are not sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG? --Perohanych (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because of Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION - none of the provided source meet reliable source requirement per WP:CORPDEPTH (The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization) Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPDEPTH — is about organizations and companies, not about persons. Oleksandr Komarov is a person. At the addresses, specified above, there are pages dedicated entirely to Komarov's biography and achievements. This does not fit the definition of trivial mention. --Perohanych (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I messed up Corpdepth with WP:SIGCOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). None of the sources provided meets SIGCOV.

Here is the assessment of the sources:

Interfax - only a passing mention and a press-release with a direct referencing to the press-center of the company; Forbes Kazakhstan - a press-release style page with brief, résumé-like mentions of his past positions, lacking significant coverage that may establish notability. Delo - a passing mention of the person with routine mentions of his three previous positions (no significant coverage, just copy-paste). Forbes Profile - profiles are never considered reliable sources, and this one primarily contains his citations. EPravda - no significant, reliable, independent coverage, only a copy-paste of his past positions without notability analysis or other substantial information. Thus, the person fails WP GNG, ANYBIO and SIGCOV Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good-faith analysis. The sources (EPravda, Delo, Forbes Kazakhstan and Interfax anyway) are legit, it's not churnalism, there's no evidence they're reprinted press releases. The Delo article is a four-paragraph profile on a list of top executives, not a "passing mention." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any truly significant coverage. All the sources mention the person only in the context of their new appointment and do not evaluate their notability. This is not churnalism but a classic reprint of trivial information—he was a manager here, then there, and today was appointed elsewhere. This does not meet the criteria for significant coverage (Sigcov) and definitely does not help in passing the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the entire article is promotional. It meets WP:BIO. Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as I cannot find how the person meets GNG. The sources are not the best either. But the problem is with general notability as general managers are not notable by their own. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General managers are not notable by their own, but a general manager who is ranked No. 1 as the best executive in the country, a general manager who has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of him — is notable. --Perohanych (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terwin (corporation)

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

The Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, share please 3 best sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT 167.86.184.60 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of them can be considered as secondary, independent of the subject, and with quite significant coverage of the corporation.

I am not sure if it is an extra argument, but simple Google Search gives 3800+ results --Perohanych (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per WP:NCORP. There is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most is in Russian or Ukrainian. See Google news. C F A 💬 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:
1. The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
2. This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
3. This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
4. This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
5. This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.
All the media are independent. There are much more sources --Perohanych (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources, all are paid, or not independent (EBA is a fee-based association which posts anything about their members). Forbes is not deep enough - it's just an announcement based on press-releases of the company. New Voice is an interview - definitely not independent or reliable source, Interfax is a press-release. 2603:9001:1E00:96F3:A459:81A7:7125:1D34 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete WP TOOSOON, absence of reliable independent of the subject sources. Maybe it will be easier to redirect the page to its founder. --2601:586:8401:C90:A2D2:B1FF:FE88:EFFC (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources, listed above, is dependent on the subject? This corporation is already very notable. --Perohanych (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names

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

While the phenomenon of using the middle name as first name could have an article (and is already discussed at Middle name#Middle name as primary forename), a list of every single notable person doing this would likely be way too large, and I haven't seen them discussed as a group in reliable sources. For virtually any person on this list, them using their middle name instead of their first name is at best trivia, and not connected to their notability, making this ultimately non-encyclopedic. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged as A3 since the page consists of only links elsewhere and contains no other content whatsoever. I'm surprised it wasn't tagged under this criterion by another reviewer before. Keep since the article has been improved considerably, and is completely different from the empty stub that I nominated for speedy deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy has been rejected twice. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article and sourced it. If it is kept, the title should probably be changed to Famous people who use their middle names as their first names, and it should probably be alphabetized too, and it also needs categories. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The expansion is good, but doesn't address the problem of this not being a defining characteristic of the vast majority of people mentioned, making this listing indiscriminate. Indeed, the vast majority of sources treating these people as a group are celebrity gossip sites (BuzzFeed, PopSugar...). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is compliant with our verifiability policy and our relevant guideline on stand alone lists, because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here, nor is the criteria for inclusion based on it being a defining characteristic. If we went by your defining characteristic argument, there would be no list articles on WP. And your argument about BuzzFeed or PopSugar, or any other of the multiple sources used in the article is really not applicable, because they are not spreading "gossip", rumors, tittle-tattle, unfounded claims or titillating claims about people's lives. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, even if what you call "independent reliable sources" aren't directly making BLP violations, it doesn't mean that they are actually considered reliable for the purpose of notability. See WP:BUZZFEED, WP:WHATCULTURE...
Also, you can't really compare this to a list of lists (which exist for navigational purposes and operate on different standards). WP:LISTCRITERIA clearly states If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance? In this case, the answer is pretty obviously no for the vast majority of people listed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed whatculture as a source per your comment and RSP, and Buzzfeed is not the sole source used to establish notability, so that is a red herring. WP:LISTCRITERIA also clearly states Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? And the answer is yes, as evidenced by multiple people listed being featured in multiple sources. Additionally, WP:LISTPEOPLE (which this list is) says - Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.

The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Both of those requirements have been met for people on the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been alphabetized and categorized, see below for suggestion on new proposed title, instead of "Famous people". Isaidnoway (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the references are reliable sources, others I'm not sure about. But this does get coverage in Seventeen Magazine, etc. When nominated for deletion, it was just some names without any references. Isaidnoway did a lot of improvements. Dream Focus 22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — So editors can get a sense of what the article looked like when it was nominated – June 20, 2024. I also think a more advisable title would be List of people who use their middle names as their first names, since the names on the list are so diverse. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With @Isaidnoway's recent improvements and the plethora of sources showing that it is indeed a notable list topic, I no longer consider that the article should be deleted, and am ready to retract the nomination if possible. Thanks a lot for your work on the article! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terézia Kulová

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

This woman has appeared for her national team, but fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. My Google searches are limited to brief mentions on news websites as well as database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:00, 21 June 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 Just Stop Oil#2024 without prejudice against also merging relevant content with Stonehenge or other pages, as applicable. There is an overwhelming consensus that this doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Since there is no content violating policy here, there is no requirement to delete the page, and a merge is a perfectly sensible alternative. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Stonehenge

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

This event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article~~, or to expand its scope to match the title,~~ have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just_Stop_Oil#2024: Per OP. Not independently notable when this is one among many Just Stop Oil protests. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Or expand scope. Amending my comment based on arguments below. — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is salvageable to Just Stop Oil per OP. WP:NEVENT is relevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate and delete. Given the tabby choice of title I'm agnostic if we need even the redirect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is appropriate to Just Stop Oil. I was tempted to nominate it myself, but thought for some reason we should wait one week or so when coverage inevitably stops. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I would be down to expand the scope to all acts of vandalism on Stonehenge. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title is simply "Vandalism of Stonehenge" so this article could be used to cover all vandalism attempts on the monument. Otherwise Merge as above— Iadmc ♫^talk 11:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why merging to Just Stop Oil would in incorrect, as it predates that organisation by decades if not more. Orange sticker (talk) Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Delete the article — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another stunt from them. No damage - not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator — I absolutely did not say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my only comment regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, GenevieveDEon put words into my mouth in this WP:RAPID deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike the comment above as it does not pertain to the content of the article and is directly entirely at me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely obvious you're targeting us with those contentious topics alerts because we want your article merged away, WeatherWriter. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? CTOPIC notices are a required thing to do. As explained to GenevieveDEon at the administrators noticeboard. After the discussion was opened up there, all the accusations of OWNing, POV-pushing, and alleged targeting were taken back by GenevieveDEon. Please don't make the same mistake and accuse me. On a brief inspection, two minutes earlier, you removed the CTOPICs notice, which you are perfectly allowed to do (with indicates you acknowledged it). In your edit summary, you stated, "where did I edit an article under that?" Does that mean you do not consider this to be even slightly related to climate change? If the answer is yes, then you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area. Also, before you accuse me further that I am targetting because "we want your article merged away", you should do your homework and see that I too support merging it. Please strike the accusations and I would strike this entire comment insuit. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, you've only tagged the article for CTOPs when the discussion got heated. I'm not striking my comment, by the way. I stand by it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentatively telling people "you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area" in response to comment on their own WP:INAPPNOTE is itself highly inappropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELAY is also listed right above WP:RAPID. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil#2024 as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the Stonehenge article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Scope or Merge — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover all acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into Just Stop Oil. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Vandalism of Stonehenge" suggests the article is about the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge and is confusing when it turns out to be about one specific incident. SystemPhantom (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand scope. There must have been similar incident etc in the past. Sourcs are good and notability fow now obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Incident appears to be a run of the mill publicity stunt with no long term significance specific to this event. Subject fails WP:LASTING, ~~WP:GEOSCOPE~~, WP:SENSATIONAL and the WP:10YT. Arguably this is a good example of why we should not rush to create articles about recent events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I dispute your assessment Ad Orientem that this fails GEOSCOPE. I highly doubt the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are "local" sources around Stonehenge. The rest I do not have a direct disagreement with, but I wanted to go ahead and dispute the GEOSCOPE argument stated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. There was international coverage. Though it has dropped drastically even in the UK which does not bode well for WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to merge into Stonehenge surely? Rather than Just Stop Oil — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have read further before my previous reply, but yes, agree if the end result is merge. Orange sticker (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Article can be mentioned at both Stonehenge and Don't Stop Oil, in due weight fashion. — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No more notable than any of the other instances of immediately reversed vandalism from JSO. Sinclairian (talk) Sinclairian (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stonehenge has been around 4,000 years and it'll be around 4,000 more. A feeble double act of environmental suffragettes taking 30 seconds to sprinkle orange flour over two of the stones doesn't warrant a mention in the main article, let alone its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:SENSATIONAL. This event is already mentioned in the Just Stop Oil article, and doesn't appear to be a more thorough coverage than appears in the JSO article. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Numberguy6 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil article, probably a prosed version briefly mentioning the event and reactions alongside would fit enough in that case. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil article. 2601:441:5180:9500:4DC1:AC55:2555:9733 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary describes vandalism as "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." This protest was neither destructive nor damaging therefore the title is false. 2601:1C0:577F:4070:39DB:2AFE:E080:8893 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just another one of their stunts involving criminal behaviour, does not merit a standalone article above any of their other ones. Should be merged into the main Stop Oil article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Do not leave a redirect to Just Stop Oil as the title is too broad. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil as it's one of their protests. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's already mention of it at Just Stop Oil article so nothing else sensible to merge. And oppose redirect since this isn't the only time in history that Stonehenge will have been vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge without redirect Supportive of either outcome. I think Just Stop Oil is a better target article than Stonehenge as this is too insignificant to warrant being in the latter. All that happened was that a small amount of corn-based colorant was sprayed on a couple of the rocks and stayed there for less than one day. Usually I'd argue that it takes more time than this to assess if an event has any WP:LASTING impact and that trying to rush to delete based on WP:LASTING would itself be WP:CRYSTAL. But it took nothing more than an air blower to remove the corn-based dye. This was just a publicity stunt that grabbed headlines by making it seem like they were causing some serious damage to a world heritage site, but in the end, they did nothing. If they wanted to cause some real damage, they probably would have used real paint instead of corn. They got the headlines they wanted, but this is the sort of story that belongs in a sensationalist tabloid paper, not an encyclopedia. Agree that this title is too broad to make it a redirect. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new page, "vandalism of monuments" and mention it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.24.27 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We're not creating a huge new WP:COATRACK article just to have a third place in which to mention this vanishingly unimportant news story that already gets coverage at Stonehenge and Just Stop Oil. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the modern history section. Merge content to Just Stop Oil. Not everything needs a separate article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil as above seeing as this is a relatively minor event, and should just be added to JSO's list of protests. Yendetta (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple protest so do not keep or rename. There is sufficient content elsewhere so do not merge. Bad title so do not redirect. No need to salvage so do not draftify or userfy. Remains delete. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Scope or Merge to Just Stop Oil per The Weather Event Writer - Sebbog13 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and don't expand scope I don't think the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge is notable Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Apparently the above comment mentioned Sinclairian somehow. Not sure how that happened. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without redirect per Orange sticker. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is is about a recent, one off event and I think it fails WP:EVENT on a number of fronts, including WP:DELAY and WP:LASTING. An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences. This article doesn't even mention the many other instances (e.g.[10][11]) of vandalism there have been over time so this article is WP:UNDUE. Orange sticker (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to remind everyone suggesting that this should be merged to Just Stop Oil that this would leave a redirect, meaning anyone searching for the term Vandalism of Stonehenge would find themselves on the JSO page, despite the fact that this is a single incident and there have been multiple incidents of vandalism carried out by various groups and individuals over the years and no doubtnit will happen again. Call for Stonehenge access ban to curb 'annual vandalism, February 2015
Orange sticker (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's sufficient content on Just Stop Oil. If that content came from here, I believe we can still redirect to Stonehenge and mention Just Stop Oil in the edit summary in order to meet attribution requirements. Vandalism of Stonehenge is already covered in the Stonehenge article and shouldn't redirect to a group that targetted Stonehenge only in one particular act which fails notability guidelines. For example, it's hardly clear from the article how this incident is going to contribute towards the fight climate change, or change government policy towards this activist group, which could contribute towards WP:LASTING for this act. The article itself has a news media tone; hence, if the topic turns out to be notable in the future, I think it would be better to write it from scratch with newer and better sources.

If the closing admin considers this discussion to have no consensus, feel free to consider this a !vote in favour of redirecting or merging; I don't want my disagreement to contribute to a keep outcome. Daß Wölf 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus against keeping the article is overwhelming. The only question is its disposition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just felt it didn't hurt to mention :) Daß Wölf 23:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have a consensus that the article should not be kept, and also that this event should be covered in the Just Stop Oil article. There is some division around whether or not any further merging is necessary beyond what has already occurred. For that reason, I suggest we simply redirect to Just Stop Oil#2024 and allow the ordinary WP:BRD process and/or discussion on the redirect target's talk page to work its magic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what if someone is searching for the vandalism of Stonehenge that took place in 2016, 1999 or 1961? Orange sticker (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have coverage on those incidents? Might it be better to dabify this page? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I don't think we have coverage from my reading of the discussion, but I agree with your approach. Personally, I would redirect it to Stonehenge, but I have no problem with you closing this and redirecting it to the other destination and allowing people to change the target outside of this AFD via WP:BRD. So, I would say go ahead and close this without further discussion and let people figure this out beyond the AFD. Malinaccier (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.

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

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/

The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources about the company found, some patents and government decisions. Listed in a paper here [12], but not really about the organization. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwoTiime

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music. No charted songs or notable awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ([13] [14]) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ([15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. C F A 💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. C F A 💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little promo in an article is not a criteria for deletion except of blatant ones. I am sure of the articles presented per se from Complex. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:06, 29 June 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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Redirect target already contains significant information about the subject and is another unjustified WP:CONTENTFORK. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Hiss

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I think something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:12, 24 June 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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. There is already significant content about the article in the redirect target so I don't think a merge is necessary. This article was basically an unncecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. And I think something from here can benefit the corresponding section at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Gigantic plot summary and one short line of reception. Exemplary WP:PLOTCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Piotrus. The main character list can include a short summary and try to leave out the unsourced material. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram-Man

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy and and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters per BoomboxTestarossa. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and can be covered at the merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Obvious WP:HOAX Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sydney Super Cup

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

Unreferenced article for an international event claimed to be held in six months' time, yet there's not a single mention of it online. The first event was a bit of a lawsuit-fest, and the best I could come up with in a WP:BEFORE search for a future event is this July 2023 article saying that the dispute was settled, with Rangers FC saying that they may participate in future TEG-sponsored events from 2024 to 2026. But the very specific claims here (Inter Miami, Malaysia U-23) look a lot like a hoax, or wishful thinking at best. Prod contested without comment (and other templates removed) by article creator. WP:TOOSOON at my most charitable. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I searched and was unable to find any sources verifying this version of the event or any of the claims contained in the article; quite possibly a hoax. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per the nomination the best I could find was coverage of Rangers settling with the organisers. Nothing on a event. TarnishedPath^talk 07:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as there are ZERO sources listed. Very possible that this is a HOAX. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speey delete as G3. Article is yet another hoax created by the same disruptive user. Thankfully they're blocked now. No need for any further discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR, and possibly WP:CRYSTAL. -Mjks28 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also per WP:HOAX I assume as well. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: see User talk:Maurocruz1994. This is a hoax. C F A 💬 14:03, 22 June 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. Thanks to participants who quickly responded and presented sources. I hope they find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I spent a little bit of time tonight cleaning up, updating references, adding a new reference to a 2016 article in Recoil (magazine). We need some help from a wordsmith to expand the text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [27], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonable coverage in books and news sources. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement here among editors on the quality of the sourcing in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as No consensus until I looked at the article and saw that only one source wasn't from the official website. Where are all of these independent sources editors arguing to Keep this article are referring to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it would be great if this article gets expanded, but meanwhile it passes content and sourcing, as is. Good starter article. — Maile (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Byrne, Susan, ed. (2003). Off the Beaten Path: A Travel Guide to More Than 1,000 Scenic and Interesting Places Still Uncrowded and Inviting. Pleasantville, New York: Reader's Digest. p. 207. ISBN 0-7621-0424-4. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Conceived in 1986 by four friends with a shared passion for historic military vehicles and who thrilled at driving their own vintage models in parades this museum has developed into a place to honor America's other veterans of the battlefront. It boasts a collection of more than 60 meticulously restored fighting machines, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Most vehicles have been acquired within a 150-mile radius of the museum. When tractors were in short supply in the 1940s and early 1950s, local farmers often relied on retired warriors rugged jeeps, trucks, and half-tracks to work their land. The Heartland's dedicated staff has rescued many from rust and oblivion, returning them to mint condition."
2. Garrison, Gretchen M. (2017). Detour Nebraska: Historic Destinations & Natural Wonders. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-62585-881-8. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Ever wondered what sitting in a tank would be like? This central Nebraska location encourages exploration of all vehicles on display. Besides tanks, helicopters, halftracks and even ambulances are on display. Jeeps from every branch of service are lined up. From World War II to present day, about one hundred restored vehicles are ready for action. Most are still operational. Military engines are also housed here."
3. Hammel, Paul (2007-06-14). "Museum shows how military goes rolling along" (pages 1 and 2). Omaha World-Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: " Such moments and memories are hallmarks of the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, a volunteer-run, admission-free facility off Interstate 80 at the Lexington exit. It displays military memorabilia, including more than 70 restored Jeeps, tanks and helicopters, to honor those who built and used the "Arsenal of Democracy." ... Lauby, 60, is among the three farmers and an attorney three of whom are Vietnam veterans who founded the museum in 1988. ... Most of the vehicles were found within a 150-mile radius of Lexington, but several were purchased through military surplus sales or donated by veterans. Over-the-road truckers and local railroads have donated services to haul the hulking machines. ... One of the museum's six Huey helicopters was shot down five times in Vietnam; another was a medical ambulance during Operation Desert Storm."
4. Duggan, Joe (1999-09-26). "Vehicles of history: Lexington farm boys establish museum". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "At the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, they've got Nebraska's largest private collection of military jeeps, ambulances, armored personnel carriers and Burma trucks. On the northeast corner of the Interstate 80 Lexington interchange, they've got about 60 restored military vehicles representing every armed conflict from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. ... What Nielsen referred to as a group of naive farm boys and ranchers incorporated as a nonprofit group, took out bank loans, raised money and built the first building on the site. They opened in 1993, but only in good weather. They put the word out that if the flag was up on the pole, the museum was open."
5. Ward, Malena (2005-04-30). "Lex museum depicts memorable Vietnam moment" (pages 1 and 2). Kearney Hub. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles was founded by Vietnam veterans, but it doesn't limit itself to that era. The museum is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of historical military equipment of all types. It is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 283 and the Lexington Interstate 80 interchange at exit 237."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Racism by country#North America and merge relevant content to other racism-by-country articles, as applicable. There is a rough consensus that while the content is notable, bundling under "North America" is not adequately supported by sources. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in North America

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

This is an unnecessary conflagration of Racism in Canada, Racism in Mexico, and Racism in the United States. It should redirect to a list at Racism by country#North America. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see what is trying to be accomplished, organizing a set of existing pieces on racism by country. I'm good with it. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try relisting this one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many sources that discuss racism in Canada, racism in the USA, and racism in Mexico. I highly doubt there are many sources that discuss racism across the entire North American continent, especially as a distinct geographical entity from Latin America/South America. This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole. Astaire (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage in these sources. The current article is synthetically-constructed, but notability is based on article potential, not article condition. Pinging @Walsh90210, Garsh2, Astaire, and Zanahary: please re-consider. Left guide (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced yet.
- The last three sources (Wong Hall, Wendt, Wilkinson) appear to be using "North America" as a shorthand for Canada and the US, with little or no discussion of Mexico. The first source (Smedley) is overwhelmingly about the US: it only uses the word "Canada" twice in the text, and Mexico is only mentioned glancingly in the context of colonial exploration. Sources that are actually about "racism in North America" should at a minimum discuss all three of the continent's largest countries.
- The third source (Danso) is printed by Nova Science Publishers, which was classified as a vanity press (i.e., no peer review).
- The second source (Russell) is the best, but it appears to be discussing the separate countries in isolation, rather than as a coherent "North American" unit. See e.g. "Chapter 4: Immigration", which has sections on "European Immigration in the United States", "Anglophones, Francophones, and Multiculturalism" (in Canada), and "A Dearth of Immigrants in Mexico". Or "Chapter 5: Race Mixture", which has sections on "México Mestizo", "The Canadian Métis", and "Racially Mixed and Socially Black in the United States". Or "Chapter 9: Racial Contours of North America", which has sections on "Legacies of Slavery, War, and Colonialism in the United States", "Mestizos, Indians, and Criollos in Mexico", and "Visible Minorities and First Peoples in Canada". So using this source would result in the same WP:SYNTH issues that the article currently suffers from.
Astaire (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: Consider for a moment, Racism in Columbus, Ohio. I'm not sure that should be a stand-alone article, but I haven't nominated it for AFD because sources exist.
This rationale is very different. This page summarizes three articles Racism in Canada, Racism in the United States, and Racism in Mexico (And, some content split to Racism in Trinidad and Tobago.). Although the word "list" isn't in the title, it is a list article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a typical WP:COATRACK because there is no coverage of this subject as a whole. It might stand as a list page, but this is not a list page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find anything discussing this topic specifically. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 of the 3 articles indicated as overlapping with this one were created after this one was. I think it's a matter of coverage depth and I do see reasons (content, coherence) to keep this one while having the others cover each country more specifically. Other articles such as Racism in South America, Racism in Europe, etc, exist. I don't see why this one should be deleted because North America is comprised of only three countries. Edit: please note that "racism in North America" is mentioned 867 times as an expression in Google Scholar. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:40, 27 June 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. since it appears in this case that the redirect is not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 03:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced network selection

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear what the topic really means outside of GSM, not clear that sources exist to show notability JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to GSM I guess? Seems like an obscure and obsolete feature of old cellular phones used by one particular network during a transition period? I guess Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and could cover a topic this obscure, if there were appropriate references, but there don't seem to be. I just see forum posts and patent applications (which are highly technical and don't explain the term, and are primary sources we wouldn't generally use anyway). --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a generic term. The article is unsourced, and was presumably written based on a single-source: a description in a c.2005 manual about the GSM protocol. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 27 June 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!} 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi Morreale

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

Non-notable and poorly sourced BLP. The present sources barely mention him or are gossip about his wedding. Ditto any search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:V. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, and American football. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this man played minor-league American football for a few years and appeared on a bunch of TV shows of very little interest. White 720 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@White 720 Interesting change of heart by the creator — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. But only rarely so maybe don't rub it in. I thank White 720 for not using this forum to waste anyone's time where most others would. It's a kind gesture. So thanks White 720. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article 17 years ago after being curious about the subject's then-current project. I don't have any real attachment to the article subject, and while I can't resist a chance to save an article with last-ditch citation adding (I've succeeded before) there's no point in preserving an article for a person whose entertainment career never really took off. White 720 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I didn't mean any malice — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following this referral from WP:BLPN. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sole extrinsic claim to N is WP:NACTOR. However, (the paucity of) BLP-worthy reliable sources underlying the claims to NACTOR makes it hard to support any particular prose or derivative filmography section. If we remove what is unreffed or supported only by the subject or allmusic, there is no encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found [[28]], but I was surprised of the lack of WP:SIGCOV considering this subject played at the highest level of college football. Let'srun (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An enormous number of people play division 1 college football — there are 134 teams, which have like 80 players each, and no one plays more than 4 years. So there are probably 3000 new players each year. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kendrick

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 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 Jean-Marie Le Pen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, White and Red Rally

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

On fr wiki, it just a redirect, on pl wiki, an AfD is ongoing. BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen, as is done on fr wiki? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am finding some French sources that appear to be about the party or its creation, (Le Journal de Dimanche, ici, RFI, Le Monde, Atlantico, L'express), but my ability to search more contextually is limited by my weak French, as "Bleu Blanc Rouge" is also used to name the French flag. Someone with French knowledge might want to dig into this, because there may well be sources there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jean-Marie Le Pen's frwiki article, he envisaged founding this new party but never went through with it. Certainly the only sources in French all seem to relate to an announcement, not to any actual activities by this party. I would suggest merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen (which will require a bit more research to add text to his article) or, failing that, deletion. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen as frwiki D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse

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

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails lasting impact. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ravanusa explosion

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

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is further coverage on the Italian article, but if that's enough to pass NEVENT, I'm not sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I genuinely don't remember what I was looking at here, did my brain make up sources? Doesn't pass nevent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is coverage in international sources as well CNN NBC Al Jazeera. The fact that plenty of national sources Rai Ansa also reported on the following trial shows the depth and duration of coverage needed to fulfill WP:NEVENT. @PARAKANYAA: I would like to hear why you think the coverage is not sufficient to pass NEVENT. Broc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kalabhavan Mani#Tamil films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singara Chennai

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

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([29]), Chennai Online ([30]), and BizHat ([31]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chennai: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films. Poor sources with no significant coverage and reliable critic reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of 3 new production sources. Thanks @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to keep if sources covering production are judged sufficient; if redirected, Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films is imv a much better target, but List of Tamil films of 2004#July—September (where it's also listed) would seem even more appropriate, as other cast members have a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sylvia

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 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!} 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Sources do not provide independent WP:SIGCOV. Unable to locate sources. Bgv. (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Asia, and Oman. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international competition to qualify for worldwide tournament. Would it be more acceptable if it was labeled a "cup" or "championship", which is what it is? 2022 Men's EuroHockey5s Championship also has the governing body (International Hockey Federation) as the only reference, which can be typical on lesser known sports.

Tbennert (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is only this tournament nominated? That makes no sense with other regional qualifying tournaments being notable. And men's tournaments also being notable. Yes, it can do with more independent sources but qualifying tournaments are part of the international cycle for global tournaments. The Banner talk 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LSU Department of Finance

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

It does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub (talk) 01:06, 20 June 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 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Education, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom that the article content is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NOTBROCHURE. BrigadierG (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Trouw

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Current sources are not independent (interview/written by subject) or are unrelated (focused on his daughter, not the subject). Other sources found online are largely passing mentions, with no coverage meeting WP:NBASIC. Previously soft deleted at AfD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, South Africa, and United States of America. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Congraph and Bloxter come up as sources, so this is more crypto-spam. I don't see this individual being covered in any RS and this reads as a fluffy resume. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after I removed the crypto sources, there's nothing there. Notability is not conferred from his daughter - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the crypto section? Are you just anti-crypto or is there a Wikipedia policy against crypto? I am sure if I remove the writing section from Stephen King, his article would be fairly strange also. Adding it back. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a slew of reasons:

nothing on this guy's page establishes that he is notable in any way
the article's creation (and recreation) is a blatant undisclosed COI edit. The article was recreated this year by the same user who originally created it in 2022 who is in turn the same user who created his daughter's article, and whose edits to Wikipedia have almost exclusively been to promote Arie and Elise.
surely relatedly, it reads as self-promotion and family promotion to an extent that is frankly laughable. "Arie Trouw is the father of Elise Trouw, a noted musician. This connection adds a unique aspect to his public persona." - really!? This would be embarrassing to write in your bio even in a context where self-promotion is accepted. How did the editor - whether it was Arie or someone connected to him - possibly think it was okay to put this in a Wikipedia article?
besides a couple of tangentially relevant sources about Elise's music career, the only source cited for the article is the Arie's own website.

Blow this article away, and let's bring the editor to the COI noticeboard too. Users have complained about their COI editing in the past on his Talk page, and he's never engaged with any of the complaints. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that there is a lot of crypto hate here as self importance of personal subjective opinions about notability. Can we stick to the facts rather than ranting like [ExplodingCabbage]? What makes a business person notable? Suing Facebook for anti-trust? Creating billions of dollars in revenue? Creating thousands of jobs? Dozens of companies? Patents? Technologies? Being regularly interviewed and quoted by industry press? Or does it come down to "I have not heard of a person, and I dislike their industry, so I want to exclude historical factual data from Wikipedia"? Pedestrian69 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: COI-spam that does not meet GNG. Melcous (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting data point, which I might suggest is something Wikipedia might consider using, is that if you ask ChatGPT, "Who is Arie Trouw?" for example, it responds with something that supports notoriety (actually uses 'prominent' and the adjective when I asked it). ChatGPT is actively governed to not be used to query people who are not in the public eye, for security reasons. Thus, I would argue that ChatGPT is a better 'notoriety' checker than either you or I. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity bio. May be notable, but this article does not demonstrate it and is clearly written by someone who is not approaching the subject in a neutral manner. Sources appear to be self published, opinion pieces, trivial mentions or discussions on other matters and companies. Critically, sources actually about the article subject appears to have been written by the article subject. (Even to the extent of interviewing themselves.) Notability is also not inherited from his daughter. Plus the fact the article complete skips having a lead to summarise notability is a good indication there is little to speak of.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources used about his daughter never mention him by name, and only establish that Elise Trouw has a father. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the WP:RS-qualifying refs to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 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!} 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter

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

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Christianity, England, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canon Sunter was arguably the most important incumbent of St Paul's church (now repurposed), the third, and most central, Anglican church in Adelaide. His activities were regularly reported in Adelaide newspapers, rating over 1,000 mentions on Trove, and there may be more to find, as the illustration appears to be taken from an encyclopedia or church history. Doug butler (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked five times in the article. Doug butler (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Of the included sources, I find a bare minimum of two instances of WP:SIGCOV: the Advertiser obit and a Quiz and Lantern column. I didn't find any other SIGCOV in a cursory BEFORE search but the baseline for WP:GNG is "multiple" so I suppose this qualifies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is multiple reliable newspaper sources coverage such as the two mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: above discussion shows subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 18:10, 24 June 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.